On Tuesday, Sen. Mike Braun (R-Indiana) suggested that precedent-setting Supreme Court rulings on abortion and interracial marriage should be undone — and then attempted to walk back his comments after they were met with widespread criticism.
Braun, who was on a conference call with reporters about the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, had been discussing what kind of qualities he looked for in a potential justice. Braun is not a member of the Judiciary Committee, which is currently questioning Jackson about her qualifications to serve on the nation’s highest bench, but he will eventually vote on Jackson’s nomination when the full Senate decides whether or not to approve her to the Court.
Braun explained that he wouldn’t view it as such because he saw the original 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling as activism, adding that justices shouldn’t “homogenize” issues for the entire nation. Instead, he said, they should leave matters like abortion up to the states.
The reporter then sought to clarify Braun’s position. “So, you would be OK with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states?”
“Yes,” Braun responded, adding:
I think that that’s something that, if you’re not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you’re not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too. I think that’s hypocritical.
After the interview was published, the Republican senator’s remarks were widely condemned, including by Indiana Democratic Party Chair Mike Schmuhl.
“When Indiana Democrats say the Indiana Republican Party’s culture wars are diminishing our nation’s future, this is exactly what we mean,” Schmul said. “Democrats implore all Hoosiers to ask themselves if they want to be associated with someone as embarrassing as Mike Braun.”
Braun also faced pushback on social media.
“My God. GOP @SenatorBraun of IN just condemned the Supreme Court 1967 ruling to end the ban on interracial marriage,” wrote human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid. “He makes this racist statement while evaluating Judge Jackson — who is Black and married to a white man.”
Braun attempted to walk back his remarks later that day, claiming that he had “misunderstood a line of questioning that ended up being about interracial marriage” — in spite of the fact that the reporter had asked the question twice, in clear and simple language.
“Let me be clear on that issue — there is no question the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race, that is not something that is even up for debate, and I condemn racism in any form, at all levels, and by any states, entities, or individuals,” Braun said in a statement to The Hill.
But many didn’t accept Braun’s explanation as legitimate, particularly because the question was posed so clearly.
“Don’t let Mike Braun walk back his insane comments & claim that he misunderstood,” wrote political commentator Lindy Li. “He said exactly what he meant: that the Supreme Court was wrong to legalize interracial marriage [and] that Roe should be destroyed.”
Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University of Ohio, agreed.
“There is no way Braun misheard the question based on the answer he gave,” Kelley said.
Former President Donald Trump has rescinded his endorsement of Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) for Senator over the congressman’s decision to focus less on peddling false claims regarding the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
“Mo Brooks of Alabama made a horrible mistake recently when he went ‘woke’ and stated, referring to the 2020 Presidential Election Scam, ‘Put that behind you, put that behind you,’” Trump said in his statement.
The former president went on to wrongly claim that the 2020 presidential election was “rife with fraud and irregularities,” even though every claim of election fraud has been debunked or deemed unfounded by fact-checkers and judges alike.
“Very sad but, since he decided to go in another direction, so have I, and I am hereby withdrawing my Endorsement of Mo Brooks for the Senate,” Trump said. “I don’t think the great people of Alabama will disagree with me.”
Trump’s decision to rescind his endorsement of Brooks could also be interpreted as a warning to other Republican candidates – a message that they should keep talk of bogus election fraud alive or else face the consequences from the Republican Party’s de facto leader.
Brooks, a longtime Trump loyalist, spoke onstage with the former president during his “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021, the day that the Electoral College results were certified by Congress. Brooks was the first lawmaker to cast a vote against certifying the election, justifying his vote by citing baseless claims of election fraud.
During that rally, Brooks asked Trump loyalists whether they were “willing to do what it takes to fight for America” following Trump’s election loss to President Joe Biden. Brooks also told members of the crowd, some of whom went on to attack the Capitol that day, to “start taking down names and kicking ass” when it came to the lawmakers who voted in favor of certifying the election.
Despite his continued insistence that the election was stolen, Brooks’s decision to move past rehashing the 2020 election may be out of recognition that Americans are no longer interested in false claims of election fraud. A Morning Consult/Politico poll from February, for example, shows that 64 percent of American voters want the Republican Party to move on from Trump’s claims of fraud, while only 23 percent want the party to continue focusing on the issue.
More than one-third of the estimated 150,000 transgender youth and young adults in the United States are at risk of being denied gender-affirming health care as politicians push a deluge of anti-LGBTQ bills through multiple state legislatures, and authorities in Texas threaten to tear apart families over transphobic allegations of “child abuse.”
Fifteen states have restricted access to gender-affirming care or are considering laws to do so, putting an estimated 54,000 transgender youth ages 13 to 17 at risk of losing access to health care that is shown to be essential for improving mental health and saving lives, according to a new report from the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. Another 4,000 young adults are also at risk of losing access to care under proposals in Alabama, North Carolina and Oklahoma that target people between the ages of 18 and 20.
The report comes as Republican politicians across the country attack the rights of LGBTQ youth and their families in an attempt to capture media attention and rally their base to the polls in 2022 and 2024. More than 100 bills attacking trans and gender-nonconforming people have been introduced in state legislatures since 2020, and 2021 was the “worst year for anti-LGBTQ legislation in recent history,” according to civiland human rights groups. The bills in 15 states currently targeting trans youth would punish and, in some cases, criminalize parents and medical providers.
Right-wing lawmakers across the country have already pushed to bar trans athletes from school sports, and now they demand that the government interrupt or even criminalize health decisions that advocates say should be left up to youth, parents, counselors and doctors. All major health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatricians (APA) and the American Medical Association, oppose legislation that would ban gender-affirming care for adolescents.
While gender-affirming medical care may include the use of hormones to delay puberty and to promote physical development that is consistent with a child’s identity — which is recommended by the APA for trans youth when they reach an appropriate age but exploited by the right to spark outrage — these treatments are only one part of a much broader model of care for trans, nonbinary and gender-nonconforming people.
Many hospitals will only offer hormone treatment to patients ages 16 and older, and some patients may choose other services instead. The gender-affirming care model includes counseling and psychological evaluations, as well as support during and after social and legal transitions, with an emphasis on affirming a patient’s identity in health care settings. Some patients receive speech therapy or laser hair removal, for example. Research has shown that rates of attempted suicide are lower among transgender people who want and receive gender-affirming health care.
Victoria Kirby York, deputy executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition, an LGBTQ+ and racial justice group, said Black youth are facing a suicide crisis, and bills peddled by lawmakers that could “take a child’s life” are a “disgrace.”
“Gender-affirming care is a model with a range of treatments, not just hormones or surgery, which is getting lost in the national conversation about these bills,” York said in an email. “For instance, gender-affirming care treatment from a mental health therapist could include the recommendation of social transition for transgender youth (name, clothing, pronouns shift, use of a binder, etc).”
While many of the anti-trans bills target hormonal treatments for transgender youth, advocates say the legislation threatens an entire medical model that has become standard treatment for trans people. Right-wing politicians cling to false claims that minors are undergoing gender-reassignment surgery, but these procedures are typically only available to adults.
One thing we hear over and over from those seeking to ban trans care is that we don’t have enough evidence that it “works”. First of all, we do have a lot of evidence that the care is safe and effective, which is why it is supported by every major medical association.
Last year, lawmakers in Arkansas succeeded in passing a law to ban gender-affirming care for transgender and gender-nonconforming minors. In Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton and Gov. Greg Abbott, both Republicans, have been widelycondemned for declaring gender-affirming care “child abuse” and ordering the state’s child protective services to investigate parents of trans kids. The policy is terrorizing families and putting youth at risk of being removed from their homes, forced into a brokenfoster caresystem and made to suffer serious emotional harm. Health officials in the Biden administration call Abbott’s order “discriminatory and unconscionable” and vowed to extend federal protections to Texas families.
The anti-trans efforts in Texas and Arkansas face lawsuits and are currently blocked by courts, at least for now. However, an anti-trans bill introduced in Missouri would rip a page from Abbott’s playbook and enshrine gender-affirming care as “child abuse” in state law. Anti-trans bills in 10 states would allow private citizens to file civil lawsuits against medical providers who violate proposed bans on gender-affirming care for youth, a tactic that mirrors the Texas “bounty hunter” anti-abortion law that has devastated reproductive health care services in the state.
The anti-trans bills across 15 states carry severe penalties for health care providers and, in some cases, family members and parents of trans youth, according to the Williams Institute. In each of these states, the bills would either criminalize providers of gender-affirming care or subject them to discipline from state licensing boards. Thousands of frontline doctors already oppose any legislation that criminalizes patient care for trans and gender-nonconforming patients.
Additionally, bills in six states would penalize parents who facilitate gender-affirming care for their children. The report continues:
About half of these bills would further limit access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth by barring certain insurance providers from offering coverage for gender-affirming care, by placing restrictions on the use of state funds or state facilities to provide this care, or by excluding gender-affirming care as a tax-deductible health care expense. Bills in seven states would prohibit certain health insurance plans from offering coverage for gender-affirming care. In eight states, bills would prohibit the use of state funds for gender-affirming care or more broadly prohibit distribution of state funds to any organization or individual that provides gender-affirming care to minors, seemingly regardless of what the funding is used for. In five states, bills would prohibit gender-affirming care by or in government-owned or operated facilities, and by individual providers employed by government entities. In four states, bills would exclude gender-affirming care as a tax-deductible health care expense.
The right’s onslaught of anti-trans policies is already taking a heavy toll on the mental health of trans youth and their families, and research shows that anti-trans messages in the media are associated with adverse mental health outcomes in adults. Advocates and researchers say trans and other LGBTQ youth are particularly vulnerable due to discrimination, the harms of negative media messaging and bullying by their peers, especially if they are also youth of color.
With experts warning that a new Covid-19 surge in the U.S. may be imminent as an Omicron subvariant spreads in Europe and Asia, congressional leaders are making little progress toward a deal to approve funding needed for the continuation of key pandemic response programs — including free vaccines and therapeutics for the uninsured.
Hampered by obstruction from Republican lawmakers who have questioned the need for any new coronavirus funding, Democratic leaders are scrambling to find a path forward for a roughly $16 billion aid package that was yanked from an omnibus spending measure last week.
The same omnibus spending bill provided $29 billion more for the Pentagon than President Joe Biden requested.
The Covid funding was removed after rank-and-file Democrats learned that the aid package was financed by repurposing previously approved pandemic money from states — a scheme, advocated by GOP lawmakers, that some feared would undermine local public health initiatives.
On Friday, the House is set to leave for recess without any coronavirus funding agreement in sight. The Department of Health and Human Services is completely out of coronavirus response money, and the White House is warning that “critical” testing, vaccine, and treatment efforts will be halted in the coming weeks without an infusion of funds.
“Without additional resources from Congress, the results are dire,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said during a press briefing last week. “Just to give you some specifics: In March, testing capacity would — will — decline… In April, free testing and treatments for tens of millions of Americans without health insurance will end. In May, America’s supply of monoclonal antibodies will run out.”
In a Twitter post on Thursday, the advocacy group Public Citizen called such a scenario “horrifying.”
“A program that pays to test, treat, and vaccinate uninsured people for Covid will end next month without funding,” the group wrote. “We’re running out of money to fight Covid, but critical aid is stalled in Congress. We can’t let this happen.”
“Without funding,” Public Citizen added, “we won’t have the resources to expand global vaccination that decreases risk of new variants, keeps cases low, and saves lives.”
We’ve only begun to see how lack of Congressional funding will impact COVID relief. https://t.co/Vl7jbNcqM6
In an interview on Thursday, Dr. Anthony Fauci — the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — said the U.S. could soon see an increase in coronavirus cases and noted that, without new funding from Congress, “a lot” of programs aimed at fighting the pandemic “are going to stop.”
“It really will be a very serious situation,” Fauci said. “It just is almost unconscionable.”
Dr. Ashish Jha, the incoming White House Covid-19 response coordinator, similarly cautioned Thursday that “we are very likely to see more surges of infections.”
“As much as I wish otherwise,” Jha wrote on Twitter, “the pandemic is not over.”
Overall, Covid-19 cases in the U.S. have been declining in recent weeks, though more than 1,200 Americans are still dying each day on average from the virus.
The rapid spread of the BA.2 subvariant, which is highly transmissible, is fueling concerns of another coronavirus wave in the U.S., particularly given that the country has been relaxing public health restrictions over the past several months.
“Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows BA.2… has been tripling in prevalence every two weeks,” ABC Newsreported Thursday. “As of the week ending March 11, BA.2 makes up 23.1% of all Covid cases in the U.S. compared to 7.1% of all cases the week ending Feb. 26, according to the CDC.”
The White House has requested more than $20 billion in funding to sustain pandemic response programs, but Republican and Democratic lawmakers last week could only agree to provide $15.6 billion in the omnibus package — and only after accepting the GOP push to take the money from states.
Now, Democratic leaders are attempting to move ahead with the coronavirus aid package as a standalone measure, an approach that appears doomed to fail given that 36 Senate Republicans have said they feel “it is not yet clear why additional funding is needed.” Psaki told reporters earlier this week that a number of Republicans aren’t returning the White House’s phone calls about the necessity of Covid-19 funding.
Dr. Michael Mina, a former Harvard University epidemiologist, said Thursday that “to think we’re at a stage to stop appropriating funds and advocating for pandemic preparedness” is “one of the worst decisions that our government could make.”
In remarks to the press on Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said of the Covid-19 funding: “We’re just going to have to pass it, and we’ll pass it when we have the votes to pass it.”
“In order to have bipartisan votes, we want it to be paid for, and that’s what we’re doing,” she added.
The Washington Post’s Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent argued in a column Thursday that Republicans won’t hesitate to lay blame for any new Covid-19 surge at the feet of Democrats, even as the GOP undermines efforts to secure new relief funding that would be used to prevent a wave of infections.
“Democrats have seemed generally skittish about really going hard at Republicans for their role in actively sabotaging our recovery from Covid,” the pair wrote. “Republicans, for their part, don’t seem all that worried about the politics of a new surge… They’ve trained their supporters to stop caring about the pandemic much at all, no matter how many people in their communities get sick and die.”
“Right now, only one party has any interest in fighting the pandemic,” Waldman and Sargent continued. “Democrats need to figure out how to rebut political attacks that make protecting public health harder, and how to make Republicans pay a political price for not caring about our national recovery at best and sabotaging it at worst.”
As Vladimir Putin’s wretched war against Ukraine grinds on with no definitive end in sight, Republicans have found a way to once again be disruptive and destructive at the worst possible juncture. After voting against $13.6 billion in assistance for Ukraine last week, dozens of GOP senators have demanded the U.S. send more weapons.
“‘We should send more lethal aid to Ukraine which I voted against last week’ is making my brain melt,” tweeted Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz.
Among the more belligerent Republicans — and more than a few Democrats who should damn well know better by now — the idea of establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine has become a rallying cry.
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy set the stage for this with an impassioned plea for such help to Congress on Wednesday.
As Noam Chomsky explained in Truthout last week, a no-fly zone is not simply a rule or guideline: “A no-fly zone means that the U.S. Air Force would not only be attacking Russian planes but would also be bombing Russian ground installations that provide anti-aircraft support for Russian forces, with whatever ‘collateral damage’ ensues. Is it really difficult to comprehend what follows?”
A no-fly zone is essentially a commitment to ensure that no enemy aircraft can enter a designated area. In order to make good on this pledge, the U.S. and NATO would have to patrol the skies above Ukraine with thousands of flights and shoot down any Russian planes that violated the banned airspace. Given that Putin has already ignored America’s warnings not to invade Ukraine and not to target Ukrainian civilians, it’s exceptionally unlikely that he would suddenly heed threats to stop sending planes into Ukraine. And destroying Russian aircraft would trigger all-out war between Russia and the West.
Plus, a no-fly zone could end up provoking a war even before American planes entered Ukrainian airspace. According to the Atlantic Council’s Damir Marusic, America would most likely build up to a no-fly zone by destroying the Russian military’s substantial anti-aircraft batteries in Belarus and Russia so that American pilots could fly without the constant threat of being shot down. Violating Russia’s sovereignty and bombing Russian military bases outside of Ukraine would also result in direct conflict.
To boil it down, implementing a no-fly zone would amount to a declaration of war with Russia. There’s virtually no other way to slice it.
Of course, this simple fact won’t preclude Republican wreckers from trying to shove President Biden into a shooting war to make him look weak in an election year, just as hundreds of thousands of deaths did not preclude them from deranging COVID policy to score points with their benighted base.
One might ask, what’s the big deal? Much media coverage has depicted Russia’s vaunted military might as turning out to be a lot of shadows and noise. Russian forces are bogging down all over Ukraine, losing vital supply lines, and its troops — a great many of whom are young conscripts — are beginning to cotton to the notion that something is out of joint. In short, this mighty power is looking awfully shaky out where the metal meets the meat. Let’s go kick Putin’s ass, right? ‘MURICA-STYLE BABY!
Reality, as ever, intrudes. Most of the damage being done by Russia to Ukraine’s civilian population has come by way of artillery barrages fired from within Russian and Belarusian territory. To be “successful,” U.S. warplanes would not only have to attack two sovereign countries within their borders in order to disable the batteries, but would also have to take out any and all surface-to-air missile defense emplacements in order to keep the skies safe for their jets. There is nothing “limited” about any aspect of this scenario.
…and the problem with no limits is where you might find yourself without them. I give you, for your edification, Anthony Faiola of The Washington Post and the most terrifying paragraph I have read in years:
The advent of tactical nuclear weapons — a term generally applied to lower-yield devices designed for battlefield use, which can have a fraction of the strength of the Hiroshima bomb — reduced their lethality, limiting the extent of absolute destruction and deadly radiation fields. That’s also made their use less unthinkable, raising the specter that the Russians could opt to use a smaller device without leveling an entire city. Detonate a one kiloton weapon on one side of Kyiv’s Zhuliany airport, for instance, and Russian President Vladimir Putin sends a next-level message with a fireball, shock waves and deadly radiation. But the blast radius wouldn’t reach the end of the runway.
Leaving aside the potential doomsday scenario emerging from a U.S./Russia shooting war, there is the fact that a no-fly zone or other aggressive NATO action would play directly into Putin’s hands. He knows his war is not going as planned. This propaganda coup would help him consolidate support back home as he intensifies his misleading cries of victimhood.
Of course, watching Putin’s monstrous attacks on civilians makes most folks want to do something, by God, and soon. However, responding with support for escalating military action would pivot this conflict into a cascading confrontation between nuclear powers that could easily spin out of control. Responding, instead, with support for the courageous antiwar activists who are organizing against Russia’s invasion from within Russia, Ukraine and across the globe, is a far better course of action.
The Ohio Supreme Court has rejected Republican-drawn district maps in the state for the third time, sending the majority-Republican Ohio Redistricting Commission back to the drawing board yet again.
In a 4-3 decision, the judges found that the maps were unconstitutional and didn’t reflect the will of voters in the state. “Substantial and compelling evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the main goal of the individuals who drafted the second revised plan was to favor the Republican Party and disfavor the Democratic Party,” the majority wrote.
The majority, including one conservative justice, said that Republicans have inflicted “chaos” on themselves in the map-drawing process. They directed the commission to turn in new maps by March 28. At least part of the primary election set to take place on May 3 will almost certainly have to be delayed.
“Resolving this self-created chaos thus depends not on the number of hands on the computer mouse but, rather, on the political will to honor the people’s call to end partisan gerrymandering,” the ruling reads. Republicans have already had their maps rejected by the court twice for gerrymandering, and the commission has missed numerous deadlines to pass maps.
Ohio’s state legislative redistricting process thus far:
– Missed deadline – Vote w/o bipartisan support – @OHSupremeCourt rejects gerrymandered maps – Vote w/o bipartisan support – Court rejects again – Missed deadline – Vote w/o bipartisan support – Court rejects a third time
Democratic state lawmakers criticized Republicans for trying to pass gerrymandered maps yet again.
“For a third time, the Supreme Court has ruled that the majority party is not above the law and cannot blatantly disregard the will of Ohio voters and the Ohio Constitution,” said Ohio House Minority Leader and Democratic redistricting commission member Allison Russo in a statement. “Democrats have a state legislative map proposal ready to go that is fair, constitutional, and closely reflects the statewide voting preferences of Ohioans. Now, it is up to the Republican Commissioners to work with us to adopt the fair maps Ohioans deserve.”
The most recent maps were adopted by the redistricting commission 4 to 3, with only Republicans voting for the map and one Republican joining the two Democrats in the group to vote against them. Because they weren’t passed with a bipartisan majority, they would only have been in place for four years.
When the commission redrew the maps after they were rejected for the second time in February, the justices ruled that the maps gave unfair favor to Republicans, giving them 58 percent of seats when previous election data has shown that about 54 percent of Ohio voters preferred Republicans. The maps then would have created a 42 percent seat ceiling for Democrats, the justices found.
Under the newly rejected maps, Republicans would have gotten 54 percent of seats in the state, matching voter preferences on a surface level. But voting rights advocates said that the maps would have put a hard cap on the number of districts that Democrats could win, regardless of voter preferences in that election.
Democrats weren’t given a chance to contribute to the map-drawing or even review the maps when they were presented in February, justices said in their decision. “The evidence shows that the individuals who controlled the map-drawing process exercised that control with the overriding intent to maintain as much of an advantage as possible for members of their political party,” the justices wrote.
On Thursday, GOP Gov. Mike DeWine suggested that Republican and Democratic mapmakers “work together” on the fourth draft, which is theoretically the entire purpose of the redistricting commission. The group was created in 2015 in a constitutional amendment approved by voters, in order to stamp out partisan bias in the map-drawing process, but Republicans have been able to commandeer the commission and create gerrymandered maps anyway.
Sixteen Republican lawmakers — most of whom are members of the House Freedom Caucus — voted against a measure this week that would recognize locations where Japanese American internment camps were once operated as historical sites, and direct the National Parks Service to promote education about the country’s treatment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
If the bill is passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Joe Biden, it would establish a program known as the “Japanese American World War II History Network” at various sites throughout the country. It would also direct the National Parks Service to oversee the program in order to expand educational opportunities about internment camps across the country.
The Republicans who voted against the measure include Reps. Lauren Boebert (Colorado), Mo Brooks (Alabama), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Chip Roy (Texas) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (Georgia). Most of the lawmakers who voted against the bill have not publicly stated why they are opposed to it, but some said that the federal government should not be in the business of rectifying historical wrongs and educating the public.
“Rep. Roy believes this matter should not be the responsibility of the federal government and that it would be best handled by private and charitable entities,” a spokesperson for the GOP lawmaker said.
Republican Rep. Andy Harris (Maryland), who also voted against the bill, justified his opposition by saying that Congress should be focused on other issues, such as the war in Ukraine or gas prices. But the same day that the bill on Japanese American internment was voted on, Harris voted in favor of another bill that would help preserve a different historical landmark in Eunice, Louisiana.
The Republicans’ opposition to the bill comes amid a far right push to censor or ban lessons on race in K-12 classrooms across the country. Indeed, bans on the teaching of Critical Race Theory have even gone as far as to forbid lessons that discuss the history of racism in the U.S. altogether.
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) has been fashioning herself as a rank-and-file Republican to GOP donors and mocking President Joe Biden while defending far right members of Congress, according to an upcoming book.
In This Will Not Pass, New York Times reporters Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns describe how, at a private fundraiser with mostly Republican lobbyists, Sinema marketed herself as anti-tax and anti-government. While disparaging Biden, the Arizona senator reportedly spoke fondly of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California), who, like Sinema, has workedto sabotage Democrats throughout Biden’s presidency thus far.
“I love Andy Biggs,” Sinema said. “I know some people think he’s crazy, but that’s just because they don’t know him.” Biggs, in return, has praised Sinema and her partner-in-obstruction Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) for their work in keeping the filibuster.
Biden aides have said that Sinema doesn’t sound like a Democrat, but more like Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), according to the book.
Aides have also said that Sinema is incredibly recalcitrant when it comes to masking policies around Biden. Last spring, “she became the first-ever lawmaker to argue with White House aides when they asked her to wear a face mask in the company of the president, repeatedly asking why that was necessary when she had been vaccinated,” the authors wrote.
Sinema is the first lawmaker to oppose masking around Biden, who is in an age group that’s especially at risk for severe COVID infection. Her choice is especially notable considering how Republicans have vehemently opposed masking rules.
If what’s written in the book is true, it means that Sinema was against masking around the president even before Republicans were, despite Republican members’ willingness to rack up fines to defy House mask mandates beginning around the same time.
The reporting altogether appears to paint Sinema as an unreliable lawmaker who is ready to pick fights and throw her own party under the bus.
Sinema’s insistence on destroying the Democrats’ agenda over the past year has led people to speculate that she may switch parties, though other political observers say that she makes strategic alliances with Republicans in order to fuel her own ambitions and ego. Indeed, Sinema has raked in donations from deep-pocketed Republicans, and Manchin’s single-minded quest to destroy Democrats’ Build Back Better Act last year made them the stars of headline after headline.
Sinema has been infamous for refusing to communicate her goals with the press or even with the president, frustrating activists and progressive groups who have launched early campaigns to primary her. Polls have found that that effort may be successful: Though she isn’t up for reelection until 2024, Sinema loses handily to potential progressive challengers in polls.
The mood in Costa Mesa on Feb. 2 was more love bomb than fire bomb: yet another school board meeting packed with impassioned parents. But this time they’d come out, on a mild Southern California evening, not to let the board know how angry they were, but how delighted.
The parents who rose to speak at the monthly meeting of the Orange County Board of Education weren’t shouting about mask mandates, vaccine requirements, trans kids on sports teams or books about racism. They didn’t have to. Instead, mother after mother, with young children in tow or on their hips, came to the podium to say that their kids used to cry before going to school, but now were filled with confidence and wonder; that they had found a transformative community among the school’s other moms; that the teachers were giving their children “the best education in the entire country.”
One former homeschooler said she’d always sworn to keep her kids out of public school, but the one they attended now had changed all that. One father was moved to talk about sunsets in explaining how the school’s mission was uniquely equipped to guide children toward goodness, beauty and truth. From the dais, the board members beamed back at the parents, and when a lone trustee protested that they should address a conflict of interest that appeared to undermine the entire proceedings, the audience burst into laughter and the trustee’s colleagues, amid jokes, voted her down.
The school under discussion that night wasn’t a regular public school. It was a recently-launched charter called the Orange County Classical Academy (OCCA), which is funded with taxpayer money but follows a private school-like curriculum centered “on the history and cultural achievements of Western civilization” and an ambiguous mission to instill “virtue.”
The public face of OCCA is its charismatic co-founder, Dr. Jeff Barke, a Newport Beach “concierge physician” who gained national notoriety as one of the most outspoken skeptics of pandemic public health policies and has voiced vitriolic opposition to today’s public schools.
Barke’s wife Mari, as it happens, is president of the Orange County Board of Education, which was deciding whether to allow OCCA to expand to new campuses throughout the affluent suburban county of nearly 3.2 million people. (That was the evident conflict of interest that sparked laughter from the crowd.) Although Orange County is more a purple than a deep-red jurisdiction these days, that board is dominated by a conservative majority, swept into power over the last several years thanks to an unprecedented influx of right-wing cash.
But OCCA isn’t only a school, or even a network of schools. It’s just one facet of a national movement driven by the vision and curriculum of Hillsdale College, a small Christian school in southern Michigan that has quietly become one of the most influential entities in conservative politics.
In an era of book bans, crusades against teaching about racism, and ever-widening proposals to punish teachers and librarians, Hillsdale is not just a central player, but a ready-made solution for conservatives who seek to reclaim an educational system they believe was ceded decades ago to liberal interests. The college has become a leading force in promoting a conservative and overtly Christian reading of American history and the U.S. Constitution. It opposes progressive education reforms in general and contemporary scholarship on inequality in particular. It has featured lectures describing the Jan. 6 insurrection as a hoax and Vladimir Putin as a “hero to populist conservatives around the world.”
If you thought that Donald Trump’s 1776 Commission — a jingoistic alternative to the New York Times’ “1619 Project” that was roundly panned by historians — died with his presidency, that effort is now being amplified and exported, on a massive scale, around the country. If you wonder what conservatives hope to install in place of the books they’re trying to ban, the answer often lies in Hillsdale’s freely-licensed curricula.
And as Republicans move into a new phase of their long-game efforts to privatize public education, Hillsdale has become a key resource. Across the nation, conservative officials from state leaders to insurgent school board members are clamoring to implement Hillsdale’s proudly anti-woke lesson plans, including the “patriotic education” premises of its recently released 1776 Curriculum, or add to its growing network of affiliated classical charter schools.
In late January, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, used his State of the State address to tease the most ambitious Hillsdale-inspired plan to date: building as many as 50 new charter schools in partnership with the college; using its 1776 Curriculum to foster what Lee calls “informed patriotism”; and launching a university civics institute to combat “anti-American thought.”
These linked trends amount to a vision of things to come if Republicans win their current war on public education. And war is how they see it. As one Republican leader promised at Hillsdale last spring, if conservatives can “get education right,” they’ll “win” the country “back.” Or as Hillsdale’s president himself likes to say, “Teaching is our trade; also, I confess, it’s our weapon.”
***
In the video that introduced most Americans to Jeff Barke, the doctor stands on the steps of a municipal building in Riverside, California, in May 2020, wearing green scrubs and a white lab coat and claiming to speak for thousands of silenced medical workers who believed the experts were wrong about COVID. In Barke’s improbable telling, the video was an accident: He asked his wife to take a picture of him addressing the anti-lockdown rally for their adult children, but she inadvertently hit her phone’s “record” button. The resulting footage was too large to email, so they posted it to Facebook instead, and the rest was unintentional history.
The video went viral, and Barke began meeting fellow “freedom fighters” around the country. He helped organize America’s Frontline Doctors, the right-wing group that became famous that July when around a dozen of its members stood before the Supreme Court, again in white coats, to call for reopening the country without delay. As later became clear, America’s Frontline Doctors was organized in cooperation with the Trump campaign, and Barke’s supposedly accidental activism was no more organic.
Barke has been involved for years in right-wing politics in and around Orange County, a realm of beaches and upscale suburban sprawl that has been a centerpiece of American pop culture and is perceived as the birthplace of modern conservatism. Those 948 square miles south and east of Los Angeles are the “Nixonland” that helped create the prosperity gospel and served as the case study for Lisa McGirr’s seminal history “Suburban Warriors.” It’s the place, Ronald Reagan often said, where “good Republicans go to die.”
Jeff Barke is a member of Orange County’s Republican Central Committee and the conservative donor organization the Lincoln Club. When Mari Barke was a delegate at the 2016 Republican National Convention, Jeff and their son attended as alternates, wearing matching stars-and-stripes suits. For 12 years, Jeff Barke was a member of the Los Alamitos school board, where he led a successful effort to require that a new course on environmental science also include dissenting opinions about climate change.
But in 2020, he graduated from local activism to national right-wing stardom as one of the most provocative voices around pandemic policy. He wrote a book, “Covid-19: A Physician’s Take on the Exaggerated Fear of Coronavirus,” with a foreword by Dennis Prager, co-founder of the right-wing video outlet PragerU. (Its fifth edition was published last month.) Barke also became a combative presence on social media, under the handle @rxforliberty, calling for fast-tracking herd immunity through widespread virus infection, and suggesting that masking children is child abuse.
In one livestream interview, Barke whipped out a Sig Sauer pistol, describing it as his preferred pandemic protection. More recently, he has compared widespread COVID testing to unnecessary breast biopsies for healthy women.
Although the Barkes are Jewish, Jeff undertook a regional mini-tour of megachurches that refused to shut down during the early days of the pandemic, and befriended a number of high-profile evangelical leaders, such as Chino megachurch pastor Jack Hibbs (himself somewhat notorious for blaming the violence of the Capitol insurrection on removing “God from the courts and from the schools”). The headmaster Barke hired to run OCCA is a member of Hibbs’ congregation. For her part, Mari Barke is a former Trump 2016 campaign volunteer and an adviser to the Unity Project, a conservative coalition formed in 2021 to oppose vaccine mandates that has since become involved in the U.S. “trucker convoy” protesting pandemic restrictions (although Mari says she has no involvement with that effort).
Along with all this advocacy, Jeff Barke was also working to get his school up and running, and the two campaigns appear strongly connected. Amid his short viral speech in Riverside, he pulled out a pocket version of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, telling the crowd they were written to restrain the government, not the people. The booklet, he later explained, was published by Hillsdale, where his son — after taking a break to work for Trump’s Department of Agriculture — is an undergraduate.
In an interview, Jeff Barke told me that attending multiple parents’ weekends at Hillsdale had led him to see the school as “a beacon of liberty” that is “fighting to return America back to its founding roots.”
In appreciation, the Barkes became members of Hillsdale’s top-tier donor “President’s Club,” and were listed on Hillsdale’s website as members of its Parents Association Steering Committee. (In an interview with Salon, Mari Barke said she turned the invitation down, but her election biography includes the committee as one of her volunteer affiliations.) It was also through Hillsdale that Jeff Barke became friends with Tea Party activist Mark Meckler, cofounder of the right-wing group Convention of States, which seeks to hold an Article V convention that could lead to rewriting the U.S. Constitution, and where Jeff holds the puzzling title of “head physician.”
In 2018, Jeff Barke lost his seat on the Los Alamitos school board, which his critics say was the result of controversial positions, such as his advocacy of climate-change denialism, although he blames a campaign against him by the local teachers’ union. But as he later told Hibbs’ church, “God had bigger plans.” In that same year, Mari Barke was elected to the Orange County Board of Education (OCBE) on a platform of “school choice and parental rights.” Her campaign amassed an unheard-of war chest of around $425,000, more than half of that donated by the Charter Public Schools PAC. She also benefited from the support of the California Policy Center (CPC), a state-level affiliate of the State Policy Network, a coalition of more than 150 right-wing groups that promote model conservative legislation. According to a 2018 lawsuit, a CPC offshoot hired Mari Barke — shortly before she announced her OCBE candidacy — to instruct an ESL course for some of its Spanish-speaking pro-charter parent activists, thus enabling her to campaign “as a teacher.” Today, she serves as the director of a CPC initiative that provides conservative policy analysis and training to state and local politicians.
Through his wife’s campaign, Jeff Barke got to know Mark Bucher, the California Policy Center’s co-founder and a fellow member of the Lincoln Club. Bucher had been involved in local education politics for decades, promoting a series of school privatization and charter initiatives and using funds from far-right Christian philanthropist Howard Ahmanson to orchestrate a mid-’90s conservative takeover of the Orange Unified School Board — one of the county’s 28 independent school districts, in and around the city of Orange (a different elected body than the OCBE). But by 2019, Barke said, Bucher had developed “a vision about classical education.” Barke told him about Hillsdale, and history was made again.
***
For decades, 1,500-student Hillsdale College — a liberal arts school in rural southern Michigan, founded by Baptist abolitionists in 1844 — has been known as a “citadel of conservatism.” Its campus features prominent statues of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, its curriculum leans heavily into the Western canon of “Great Books” and it describes itself as “a trustee of modern man’s intellectual and spiritual inheritance from the Judeo-Christian faith and Greco-Roman culture.”
In the 1980s, the college earned right-wing adulation for refusing to accept any federal funding, including student aid, to maintain its “independence in every regard”; in practice, this means it doesn’t have to comply with federal regulations, such as Title IX prohibitions on sex discrimination or the reporting of student racial demographics. (In 2013, Hillsdale president Larry Arnn complained to a Michigan legislative committee about state officials visiting campus to assess whether the student body included enough “dark ones.”) Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas once summoned up Reagan and American colonist John Winthrop in calling Hillsdale a “shining city on a hill.”
But in recent years, Hillsdale has greatly expanded its influence, becoming one of the most significant actors in U.S. conservative politics — if also one of the least conspicuous. Throughout the Trump years, there was a virtual revolving door that shuttled Hillsdale staff and alumni back and forth between the school, the White House and Capitol Hill. (Vanity Fair described the college as “a feeder school for the Trump administration.”) Right-wing politicians and thought leaders vie to give speeches at Hillsdale, which are then disseminated to a claimed audience of 6.2 million through the school’s monthly publication, Imprimis.
Arnn, who has led the school for the last 22 years, is a Churchill scholar from Arkansas with a penchant for folksy and antiquated diction. For him, college is “a hoot,” freshmen are “little wigglers,” his sons (affectionately) are “wastrels,” and the emotional namesake patron of Hillsdale’s charter school program, conservative philanthropist Stephen Barney, is (also affectionately) “a blubber baby.” Arnn came to the college in 2000, in the wake of a shocking scandal that appeared to threaten Hillsdale’s future. (The previous president allegedly had an affair with his son’s wife, who subsequently killed herself.)
But Arnn’s mission went well beyond restoring stability. He was co-founder and later president of the Claremont Institute, an influential right-wing think tank that has spent the last six years trying to ret-con an intellectual platform for Trumpism and is also home to John Eastman, the law professor who tried to convince Mike Pence to throw out electoral votes and overturn Trump’s defeat. Given those connections, Arnn seemed destined to deepen the school’s ties to the conservative movement. He has succeeded, probably more than he could have expected.
In 2009 Hillsdale hired right-wing activist Ginni Thomas, the wife of Justice Thomas, to help the college launch a Washington campus on Capitol Hill, across the street from the Heritage Foundation (where Arnn is a board member). From that facility, which inspired a 2018 Politico feature entitled “The College that Wants to Take Over Washington,” Hillsdale initially ran a joint fellowship program for senior congressional staff with Heritage and the Federalist Society.
Ben Domenech, founder of right-wing publication The Federalist, has used a studio at Hillsdale’s Washington campus to record his podcast, and Federalist editor in chief Mollie Hemingway teaches journalism there. Michael Anton, a former Trump White House adviser and author of the notorious essay, “The Flight 93 Election,” which made an apocalyptic case for the necessity of electing Trump, has joined Hillsdale’s Washington staff to lecture on politics. The school’s cheerleaders have included many of the biggest names in right-wing media, including the late Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Hugh Hewitt, who for years has run a weekly interview series with Arnn and other Hillsdale faculty members that now includes hundreds of episodes.
Arnn endorsed Trump in 2016 (along with a number of Hillsdale staff, who dominated a group endorsement titled “Scholars & Writers for America“) and was on the short list to serve as Trump’s secretary of education. The new president of course picked Betsy DeVos instead, and she too has Hillsdale ties. Her brother Erik Prince, founder of the “military contractor” company previously known as Blackwater USA, is a Hillsdale graduate, and her family’s foundations have made extensive donations to Hillsdale over the years. For a small liberal arts school, it has amassed an astonishing endowment of more than $900 million.
DeVos is philosophically aligned with Hillsdale’s mission as well. In 2001, she called on conservative Christians to embrace the Republican “school choice” agenda as a more efficient means of advancing “God’s Kingdom” than merely funding private Christian schools, since, as she told one group of wealthy believers, “everybody in this room could give every single penny they had, and it wouldn’t begin to touch what is currently spent on education every year in this country.” Nineteen years later, in a speech at Hillsdale shortly before the 2020 election, DeVos invoked Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper (perhaps questionably) to argue that government should have little role in education and parents should be able to direct taxpayer funds to private schools.
Two months later, Arnn was tapped to lead Trump’s 1776 Commission, drafting a blueprint for “patriotic education” as a rebuttal to “The 1619 Project.” (The vice president of Hillsdale’s Washington operations was also appointed to serve as the commission’s executive director.) Although President Biden disbanded the commission the day he took office, Hillsdale released a closely related project last July: the 2,425-page 1776 Curriculum, offered as a free download on the school’s website. In his own speech at Hillsdale in September, former secretary of state and potential 2024 presidential candidate Mike Pompeo called for the curriculum to “be taught each place and everywhere.”
Hillsdale’s alumni are not unanimously happy with the direction Arnn has taken the school. Julie Vassilatos, who attended Hillsdale in the ’80s, said that in those heady Reagan days, the school was certainly a world unto itself, “but not like Republican bubbles are now. I don’t know if I can get this across — it wasn’t insane.”
By the time Vassilatos neared graduation, she said, the first signs of a shift were visible, as students began trickling in from homeschooling “survivalist” families. Nevertheless, Arnn’s endorsement of Trump left her speechless. “When I was there, it was very ideologically oriented in a Great Books kind of way, towards ‘the higher things,’ ‘the permanent things,’ ‘the good, the true and the beautiful.’ So I have never been more shocked in my life than that they went for Trump, because he’s the absolute opposite of everything I thought I was taught in college.”
Another alumnus, Tennessee writer and podcaster Sam Torode, who graduated in the late-’90s, likewise saw Arnn’s support for Trump — particularly his 2020 re-endorsement, after the first impeachment, the family separation crisis and Charlottesville — as “a betrayal of everything I learned at Hillsdale.” When Arnn’s 1776 Commission released its report less than two weeks after the Jan. 6 attack, Torode drafted an open letter, signed by a few dozen former students, chastising Arnn for promoting the project in the immediate aftermath of “the greatest threat to the Constitution and America’s representative democracy in our lifetimes.”
But Hillsdale’s actual and planned expansion is much broader than its direct links to political power. In 2020, the college began building a Center for Faith and Freedom in a replica Monticello mansion in Connecticut, donated to the school along with a $25 million endowment by Friendly’s restaurant magnate S. Prestley Blake.
In December, Hillsdale launched a new Washington project, the Academy of Science and Freedom, to highlight the arguments of three prominent COVID-19 skeptics, including Dr. Scott Atlas, Trump’s former pandemic adviser. In recent months Hillsdale has acquired a sizable tract of land outside Sacramento as part of plans to establish an education center in California. It’s adapting its curricula for homeschooling parents and this year will launch a master’s program to train teachers to staff its charter schools. Arnn recently said that South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem offered to build Hillsdale “an entire campus” in that state.
A newly leaked video shows far right Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-North Carolina) calling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a “thug” and deriding the Ukrainian government as “evil” and “woke.”
In a short video obtained by WRAL, Cawthorn says, “Remember that Zelenskyy is a thug. Remember that the Ukrainian government is incredibly corrupt and is incredibly evil and has been pushing woke ideologies, and really there’s a new woke ruling.” The video was likely taken at a town hall in Asheville, North Carolina, over the weekend.
It’s unclear what Cawthorn is referring to when he says that the Ukrainian government is pushing “woke ideologies,” but the actual meaning is likely inconsequential, as the right often lies and bends the truth to propagandize.
However, Cawthorn’s rhetoric seems to tie the invasion to the American political right’s battle against “woke” agendas, a concerning statement as conservatives openly embrace fascism while scapegoating “woke” progressives and Democrats – or essentially, anyone who opposes them – for any and all problems that the right claims are plaguing the country.
About an hour after the video was leaked, Cawthorn appeared to double down on his comments on Twitter. He denounced Vladimir Putin, but said that Ukrainian “[p]ropaganda is being used to entice America into another war,” and that “leaders, including Zelensky, should NOT push misinformation on America.”
Cawthorn linked an article about “Ukrainian misinformation” that is supposedly goading the U.S. into entering into war with Russia. The linked article relied on multiple stories about the Russian invasion that have since been debunked.
— The Republican Accountability Project (@AccountableGOP) March 10, 2022
In response to the video, Republican state Sen. Chuck Edwards wrote on Twitter that the real “thug is Vladimir Putin” and that anything other than support for Zelenskyy and Ukraine is “counter to everything we stand for in America.” Former George W. Bush deputy chief of staff Karl Rove wrote in the Wall Street Journal, where Cawthorn’s speech was first reported, that Cawthorn’s words “[don’t] reflect Republican opinion.”
It’s unclear why Cawthorn made these claims. It’s true that Zelenskyy has asked the U.S. for aid, specifically requesting that the U.S impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine, which would be an act of war with likely devastating consequences. There’s no evidence that Zelenskyy is pushing disinformation in his pleas as Cawthorn claims, however.
While it has been popular amongst Republicans in recent weeks to denounce war with Russia, this stance is an odd flip for the party that typically jumps at the chance to enter war or otherwise lift up militarism. It’s possible that Republicans are hedging their bets that President Joe Biden will enter war with Russia, in which case they can claim that they were right all along, similarly to how they flipped on exiting Afghanistan when Biden did it instead of Donald Trump.
In recent social media posts, Cawthorn appears to be saying that he thinks that Biden is somehow at fault for injuries in Ukraine. Meanwhile, supporters of QAnon, which Cawthorn has denounced but spouted conspiracy theories from, have begun repeating Russian conspiracy theories that the U.S. is developing bioweapons in Ukraine.
The Republican-controlled Florida legislature passed a bill on Wednesday that would create a special elections police force meant to monitor elections at the behest of far right Gov. Ron DeSantis, who says that he will sign it into law.
The bill would establish an Office of Election Crimes and Security within the Department of State, which is overseen by DeSantis. The 25-person office would allow DeSantis to appoint 10 police officers to investigate supposed election crimes —despite the fact that experts have repeatedly proven that election fraud doesn’t exist at a scale that would even begin to approach affecting election results.
Appointing police officers to monitor elections to probe for non-existent voter fraud is nakedly fascist. This move is indicative of the fact that the U.S. is in fascism’s “legal phase,” as fascism scholar Jason Stanley noted in The Guardian late last year.
The bill is the most extreme yet in Republicans’ push to suppress voters en masse, and voting rights advocates say that it will disproportionately affect Black voters.
“The governor’s personal goon force will exist to do only one thing: intimidate Black voters,” Walter Shaub, senior ethics fellow for the Project on Government Oversight, said on Twitter.
“It’s also gonna be a felony to take your sick grandma’s ballot to a drop box for her, unless you strap her in a cart and wheel her down there with you,” Shaub continued, referencing the fact that the bill makes it a felony for a voter to bring other people’s ballots to a dropoff location, which would disproportionately affect disabled or elderly people. The punishment for that is a hefty fine of up to $50,000 and five years in prison.
Even before Republicans began passing exceedingly punitive voter suppression laws, Black voters were already punished harshly and disproportionately for supposed election fraud, often in cases where they had just made a simple mistake. Black people are also disproportionately the target of police violence and surveillance.
Republicans claim —as they have for over a year as they pass dozens of voter suppression bills across the country —that the new bill is about election integrity. But the laws are actually an extreme reaction to former President Donald Trump’s loss in 2020, and an attempt to give Republican lawmakers more control over election results in the future.
Republicans haven’t provided any evidence that widespread voter fraud is a legitimate issue. Though increased voter suppression laws from Republicans have already alarmed voting rights advocates, the current bill is one of the starkest signs yet that the GOP is openly embracing authoritarianism.
“Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis is taking Orwell’s 1984 and running with it into a despotic dystopia of his own feverish imagining with his hoped-for, first-in-the-nation creation of an Office of Election Crimes and Security to ensure ‘elections are conducted in accordance with the rule of law,’ though, in fact, they already are,” wrote Abby Zimet for Common Dreams.
The blatant voter suppression is just one example of the right’s increasing embrace of facism; as Henry Giroux noted for Truthout in November, DeSantis and the GOP’s attacks on education, and their efforts to punish educators for teaching about race, LGBTQ issues, and diversity, are also a sign of rising fascism on the right.
Republicans’ attacks on public and higher education are “closely aligned to a fascist politics that despises anyone who holds power accountable and sees as an enemy anyone who fosters liberating forms of social change or attempts to resist the right wing’s politics of falsehoods and erasure,” Giroux wrote.
Sen. Rick Scott’s (R-Florida) plan to force every American to owe income tax in his recently released platform for the Republican Party would raise taxes by over $1,000 for the bottom 40 percent of income earners, a new analysis found.
In a report released on Monday, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) estimated that the poorest Americans would be the most affected by Scott’s plan — meaning that the GOP’s tax plan would essentially be to tax the poor.
The poorest 20 percent of Americans, who make $12,300 a year on average, would owe about $1,050 more in federal taxes, or about 9 percent of their income. The next 20 percent, who make $34,700 on average, would owe $1,390 more, or 4 percent of their income, ITEP found. The middle 20 percent of Americans would owe about $500 more on average. The top 5 percent would essentially owe $0 more.
Scott’s outline says that he wants to make sure all Americans pay some income tax in order “to have skin in the game.”
“Currently over half of Americans pay no income tax,” Scott wrote. Indeed, a large portion of Americans don’t owe federal income taxes. Many don’t owe taxes because they simply don’t make enough income to qualify. People with disabilities, retirees and other Social Security beneficiaries don’t owe taxes because much of the program is tax-exempt.
Some people don’t owe federal income taxes because they receive tax credits; because of programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, many Americans have a negative tax burden.
ITEP calculated these estimates by assuming that Scott’s plan would make it so that all Americans owed at least $1 in taxes, taking credits into account. So, if a household had an income tax liability of $1,000, and would normally have received a credit of $1,500 from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), they would not receive their expected $500 tax refund under Scott’s plan, ITEP wrote.
The poorest states would be most affected by this plan, the report found. Over 50 percent of Mississippi residents would see a tax increase, with other Southern states like West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana and Alabama trailing closely behind.
If Scott’s plan were passed, and carried out in the way that ITEP interpreted, it would have a devastating impact on the people in the country who are most in need.
According to the Federal Reserve, about 36 percent of Americans said in 2020 that they would have difficulty paying for an emergency expense of $400, with 12 percent saying that they wouldn’t be able to. This statistic is similar to that of previous years, despite the fact that COVID relief packages, extra unemployment insurance and expanded child tax credits helped lower financial worries for the public, even if they were laid off during the pandemic.
A recent survey showed that a large portion of Americans would have difficulty paying an emergency $1,000 bill. About 56 percent of survey respondents said that they would have to take steps like charging a credit card and paying it over time, cutting other expenses or borrowing the money in order to pay the bill.
Scott’s tax plan reflects Republicans’ stubborn opposition to raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Some of the world’s richest people, like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, regularly owe $0 or an otherwise miniscule amount in taxes. But GOP lawmakers have worked to maintain low tax rates for the richest Americans and slash funding for the IRS so that they can keep dodging taxes.
On Monday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shot back at Republicans who were complaining about high gas prices, pointing out the flawed logic of comparing current prices to prices under the Trump administration during the early days of the pandemic.
Over the weekend, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Republican from Tennessee, wrote, “Under President Trump, gas was about $2.17 in 2020.” While gas prices were indeed low in 2020 compared to previous years, they had taken a plunge after a national emergency was declared in March, and stayed relatively low for the rest of the year as people drove significantly less during the beginning of the pandemic.
Ocasio-Cortez pointed to this vital context in her reply to Blackburn on Twitter. “Maybe that has something to do with the fact that everyone in the country was quarantining while 350,000 people died and COVID vaccines weren’t out yet,” the New York lawmaker said.
She then called out Republicans who have been complaining about gas prices over the past months. “Unemployment also hit 14.8 percent in 2020, the highest rate ever seen in the US since data collection began,” she said. “Does the Senator want to jump to claim that as Trump’s legacy too? Or would we rather examine context and data like adults?”
Circumstances in 2020 were so extreme, in fact, that oil trading prices briefly fell into the negatives weeks after the pandemic hit the U.S.
Other Democrats also criticized Blackburn for blatantly ignoring context in her tweet. “Yes! Low gas prices was a nice upside consequence of the cataclysmic 2020 economic meltdown,” wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut).
Republicans and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) have also blamed Biden for high gas prices because of his revocation of the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. But the pipeline wouldn’t even have been built by now, and studies have found that it actually would have increased gas prices in the Midwest and not affected prices nationwide.
Although retail prices have been reaching highs recently, experts say that there’s little Biden can do about it. On Tuesday, Biden announced that his administration is banning Russian oil imports, one of the few actions he can take that could potentially impact gas prices — but still, the vast majority of U.S. crude oil imports come from other countries.
As Biden has pointed out, however, some of the blame for high gas prices falls on oil companies themselves. Late last year, Biden asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether or not oil and gas companies are driving up gas prices at the pump in order to pad their profits.
In response to Vladimir Putin’s invasion, Biden warned oil and gas companies not to use the crisis as an excuse to raise prices. Meanwhile, lawmakers like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and climate activists have called for a windfall tax on oil company profits during the crisis to discourage them from artificially inflating prices.
There are two Republican centers of gravity coming together in and around Washington D.C., and on spec, they couldn’t seem to be more different. On one side are the truckers currently engirding the D.C. metro area in an attempt to create some chrome-heeled Woodstock dystopia where everyone took the brown acid despite repeated warnings. Back in town, the ultra-conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is organizing its annual World Forum confab, which will be held this weekend down at posh Sea Island, Georgia. The event will feature a constellation of Republican leaders and deep-pocket conservative megadonors, all looking to rub their collective woes together regarding the state of political play. They would have the upcoming midterms by the throat, they fret, but for that headless orange chicken down in Florida who keeps running and running because it refuses to believe it’s already dead.
AEI and its upcoming forum have positioned themselves as vividly Not Trump. The former president was pointedly not invited to the affair, and among the key speakers will be Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has finally made his distaste for Trump very public. Also speaking is Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, who made Trump’s all-time shit list for doing his job by certifying President Biden’s win in that state. Several other Republicans of like mind are expected to speak, and the affair may serve to formalize the expanding rift between the old-line party and its Trump-obsessed base.
Take a drive out of town and find that base in its truck convoy, however, and pumping up Trump appeared to be the last thing on most everyone’s mind. Historian Terry Bouton explored the trucker encampment at the Hagerstown Speedway, and was struck by how little politics was discussed. “Lots of Trump gear, but no one was talking about him,” he noted. “Not one person mentioned Russia or Ukraine all day.”
So what do they want? The whole trucker protest convoy idea began in Canada (funded with U.S. donations) with a fight against vaccine mandates at the border, but as mandates are rapidly going the way of the dodo, convoy organizers threw wide the doors for any and all far-right ultra-nationalist white power super-conspiracy advocates to join in, the fringe of the fringe of the fringe as it were, and the scene got weird at warp speed. Weird, and more than a little ominous.
“This was a movement-recruiting event,” reported Bouton. “It was designed to draw people in with a family-friendly, carnival atmosphere. Free food & drinks. Booths, activities, a prayer tent. Revving engines, honking horns, bright lights. ‘Sign My Truck’ with sharpies. T-shirt and flag vendors. There was a clear attempt to appear more mainstream. The focus was a big-tent ideology of ‘Freedom.’ Although started by anti-vaxxers, it was re-framed as ‘protecting our liberties’ in ways that allowed for diverse beliefs. Christian Nationalism mixed with QAnon spiritualism.”
“Christian Nationalism mixed with QAnon spiritualism” is what passes for “diverse beliefs” on the trucker circuit these days, I guess. No such wildness over at AEI, of course. Having a CEO who once worked for Democrats is about as far outside the lines as those folks tend to go. These are serious people about serious business.
AEI, you may recall, is the birth mother of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), another right-wing think tank that most every George W. Bush-era neo-conservative called home at one point or another roundabout the turn of the century. Their blueprint for the future, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” envisioned a far more militarily muscular U.S. bringing “Pax Americana” to the Middle East. All they needed was a catalyst, “a new Pearl Harbor” as they put it, and on September 11, 2001, they got exactly what they needed.
In short, this — all this, every bit of this, this ash pile we occupy, this careening juggernaut, this doomed and double-damned moment, right now — is the future PNAC and AEI set up for us 20 years ago. Soon, they’ll be down at Sea Island taking in the ocean air and plotting their next big play… and that right there is the THUD in the middle of the sentence: What play can they plan for with Trump bashing around, and with the GOP base seemingly in his grasp?
To be sure, certain high-profile GOP figures are slipping away from Trump. Mike Pence, who can easily be mistaken for a glass of low-fat milk if the prescription on your glasses is out of date, smacked Trump around at a GOP fundraiser the other day. That’s like getting attacked by a footrest.
Mitt Romney, who spends most of his time doing an excellent “Sam the Eagle from the Muppet Show” imitation, channeled some undistilled Don Rickles in his recent takedown of Trump’s most ardent allies within the party. Trump’s only response has been incoherent yelling about the fact that his precious new social media platform works almost as well as two tin cans tied together with string (and yes, these are a few of my favorite things). When Pence and Romney get bold, it’s hats over the windmill.
The Not Trumpers have their work cut out for them, because it isn’t just QAnon spiritualists flooding his corner. As recently as a week ago, a large majority of all Republicans want him to run again in 2024, preferring Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis as the nominee only if Trump stays home. Many of those still believe the big lie that Trump has been weaving for more than a year now. Much of the GOP has become like one of those bouncy rooms that gets caught in the wind and goes flying over the horizon with the kids still inside; McConnell and his ilk will need some long ropes to haul them back down to Earth.
Right now, the GOP is like a loaf of bread split down the middle. One half is stale and moldy, the other hot and filled to bursting with grubs and mealworms. The two have existed together, and even thrived, for a very long and damaging time.
The party is still mightily dangerous; even in its separated state, it is an ultimate menace. If it is repaired, the rest of us will lose badly, perhaps mortally. This bears watching.
Former President Donald Trump has officially endorsed a plan, created by a man who has self-identified with the Oath Keeper militia, that aims to have Trump supporters consolidate control of the Republican Party.
The plan, known as the “precinct strategy,” has been repeatedly promoted on Steve Bannon’s popular podcast. As ProPublica detailed last year, it has already inspired thousands of people to fill positions at the lowest rung of the party ladder. Though these positions are low-profile and often vacant, they hold critical powers: They help elect higher-ranking party officers, influence which candidates appear on the ballot, turn out voters on Election Day and even staff the polling precincts where people vote and the election boards that certify the results.
“Just heard about an incredible effort underway that will strengthen the Republican Party,” Trump said Sunday in a statement emailed to his supporters. “If members of our Great movement start getting involved (that means YOU becoming a precinct committeeman for your voting precinct), we can take back our great Country from the ground up.”
Trump’s email named Dan Schultz, an Arizona lawyer and local party official who first developed the precinct strategy more than a decade ago. Schultz spent years trying to promote his plan and recruit precinct officers. In 2014, he posted a callout to an internal forum for the Oath Keepers militia group, according to hacked records obtained by ProPublica.
“Why don’t you all join me and the other Oath Keepers who are ‘inside’ the Party already,” Schultz wrote under a screen name. “If we conservatives were to do that, we’d OWN the Party.”
Federal prosecutors in January charged the leader of the Oath Keepers and 10 of its other members with seditious conspiracy in last year’s attack on the U.S. Capitol. One of them pleaded guilty, as have several members of the group in related cases who are cooperating with the investigation. The group’s leader, Stewart Rhodes, pleaded not guilty.
There is no indication that Schultz had any involvement in the Capitol riot.
Schultz told ProPublica he never became a formal member of the Oath Keepers organization. “I have taken oaths to support and defend the Constitution as a West Point cadet, as a commissioned U.S. Army officer and as a practicing attorney,” Schultz said in a text message. “Those oaths do not have expiration dates, by my way of thinking, and I have kept my oaths. In that sense, I am an ‘oath keeper.’”
According to experts on extremist groups, the Oath Keepers recruit military and law enforcement veterans using the idea that their oath to defend the Constitution never expired. The group then urges people to resist what they say are impending orders to take away Americans’ guns or create concentration camps.
“I don’t ever want to be pulling the trigger on an AR-15 in my neighborhood,” Schultz said in a 2015 conference call with fellow organizers, referring to the semi-automatic rifle. “Oath Keepers, I love them for instilling the oath. But what they need to do also, I think, is spread the message that hey, we can do stuff politically so we never get to the cartridge box.”
In more recent interviews on right-wing podcasts and internet talk shows, Schultz has repeatedly described his precinct strategy as a last alternative to violence.
“It’s not going to be peaceful the next go-round, perhaps,” Schultz said in a June interview with the pro-Trump personality David Clements. “But it ought to be, and the way to ensure that it will be is we’ve got to get enough of these good decent Americans to take over one of the two major political parties.”
It was not clear whether Trump or his aides were aware that Schultz has self-identified with the Oath Keepers. Trump’s spokesperson, Liz Harrington, did not respond to requests for comment.
Schultz has spent months trying to get his idea in front of Trump. Steve Stern, a fellow movement organizer, told ProPublica that he met a former Trump administration official for lunch at Mar-a-Lago, the ex-president’s private club in Palm Beach, in December. While there, Stern said, he got a chance to briefly mention the project to Trump.
Then, last month, Schultz and Stern landed an interview on a talk show hosted by Mike Lindell, the MyPillow CEO who promotes conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. Lindell said he would discuss the plan with Trump personally. Schultz and Stern followed up with a conference call with Harrington and Bannon, according to Stern. Harrington previously worked at Bannon’s “War Room” website.
“I know the president’s very jacked up about it,” Bannon said on his podcast, speaking with Schultz after Trump released the endorsement. “Help MAGA, help the America First movement, right? Help the deplorables, help President Trump, help yourself, your country, community, your kids, grandkids, all of it. Put your shoulder to the wheel.”
Bannon, who led Trump’s 2016 campaign, originally lifted the precinct strategy to prominence in a podcast interview with Schultz last year. After the episode aired, thousands of people answered Bannon’s call to become precinct officers in pivotal swing states, according to data compiled by ProPublica from county records and interviews with local party officials.
As of last August, GOP leaders in 41 counties reported an unusual increase in sign-ups since Bannon’s first interview with Schultz, adding a total of more than 8,500 new precinct officers. The trend appears to have continued since then. New precinct officers started using their powers to remove or censure Republican leaders who contradicted Trump’s election lies and to recruit people who believe the election was stolen into positions as poll watchers and poll workers.
Bannon received a last-minute pardon from Trump after the former adviser was charged with financial fraud. He has pleaded not guilty to contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack. Bannon’s spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.
In addition to Bannon and Lindell, the precinct strategy has won support from pro-Trump figures such as former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who urged Trump to impose martial law, and lawyers Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, who led some of the lawsuits seeking to overturn the election results. Right-wing groups such as Turning Point Action, which organized buses to transport rallygoers on Jan. 6, also joined the effort to recruit precinct officers.
While Stern said he’s thrilled about Trump’s written statement endorsing the precinct strategy, he said he hopes to hear it from Trump’s own lips at an upcoming rally. Stern said he plans to be there with tables to sign more people up.
The United States and Iran appear to be in the final stages of negotiations to revive a 2015 agreement, known officially as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which imposed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities in exchange for lessening the country’s diplomatic and economic isolation. Some reports say a deal could be announced in as soon as two weeks.
There are still several key sticking points that could derail the negotiations. Iran’s government wants assurances that any agreement won’t be ripped up by a future U.S. president, as Donald Trump did with the first deal. Those assurances aren’t likely to be forthcoming, however, as the Senate is all but guaranteed not to ratify any deal as an official treaty. Instead, it would be an executive agreement, like the first deal, which can be undone by future executive actions. Even if the first deal had been ratified as a treaty, it’s possible Trump could have exited the deal without congressional approval. Iran has also reportedly asked that its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps be removed from a U.S. terrorist watchlist; it’s not clear whether the Biden administration is considering taking that measure.
Hardliners in both the United States and Iran have long opposed any deal that the other country could agree on. Former Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, a moderate who negotiated and ultimately signed the agreement, has been politically marginalized and targeted by opponents of the deal, some of whom have gone so far as to demand he be prosecuted for treason.
Opposition to diplomacy is prevalent among elected Republicans in the United States as well. More than 150 Republican members of Congress recently signed a letter promising to oppose any deal between the Biden administration and Iran that wasn’t simultaneously ratified as a treaty and approved by two-thirds of the Senate. The Republicans’ letter to Biden states that if he “forge[s] an agreement with the Supreme Leader of Iran without formal Congressional approval, it will be temporary and non-binding and meet the same fate” as the deal negotiated under President Obama.
Earlier this month, 33 Republican senators sent their own letter with a similar warning. “Any agreement related to Iran’s nuclear program which is not a treaty ratified by the Senate is subject to being reversed, and indeed will likely be torn up, in the opening days of the next Presidential administration, as early as January 2025,” the senators wrote.
The original 2015 deal gave Congress a 60-day review period to study the agreement, and Republicans in both chambers were ultimately unsuccessful in derailing it legislatively.
The practical effect of the threats is limited, as least for the time being. “The reality is that the JCPOA has already been reviewed and voted on in Congress,” Ali Vaez, Iran project director at Crisis Group, recently told Axios. “All the political posturing notwithstanding, there is practically nothing that Congress can do to stop that from happening.”
Still, the two letters send an unmistakable message to Iran’s leaders that should a Republican win the presidential election in 2024, any diplomatic agreements made by the Biden administration won’t be honored.
In an interview in the Financial Times, Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian called on Congress to “issue a political statement announcing their support of the agreement and a return to J.C.P.O.A.” He added, “Iran cannot accept as a guarantee the words of a head of state, let alone the United States, due to the withdrawal of Americans from the JCPOA.”
Joe Cirincione, a distinguished fellow at the Quincy Institute, tweeted that “the biggest remaining obstacle” to a deal was “the lack of US credibility” due to Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the first deal.
Trump withdrew from the agreement in May 2018, despite his own administration twice certifying that Iran was in compliance with the deal. The U.S. then imposed harsh sanctions on Iran, driving up energy prices and inflicting significant pain on Iranian citizens. The sanctions also severely limited Iranians’ access to medicine and other health care, despite theoretical exemptions for humanitarian aid. “For ordinary people, sanctions mean unemployment, sanctions mean becoming poor, sanctions mean the scarcity of medicine, the rising price of dollar,” Akbar Shamsodini, an Iranian businessman told The Guardian in 2018. The other signatories to the deal — France, Germany, the U.K., China and Russia — were all forced to determine whether or not they would continue to abide by the agreed-upon terms of the deal.
Iran has long stated that its nuclear program is only for energy production, and is entirely peaceful. Those claims are supported by the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency, which hasn’t found evidence that Iran is making a nuclear weapon. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei recently reiterated that his country is only developing its nuclear program for peaceful purposes, specifically to ensure their energy independence.
Opposition to the deal is nearly uniform in the Republican Party. Signatories to the recent letter to Biden included House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, hardcore Trumpists like Louie Gohmert and Jim Jordan, and “never-Trump” conservative Liz Cheney. Indeed, ever since then-President George W. Bush included Iran in the so-called Axis of Evil in his 2002 State of the Union address, conservatives have found wide-ranging political utility in manufacturing Iran as the world’s great supervillain.
For as much ink is spilled about the supposed fractures in the Republican Party, the unanimously hawkish approach to Iran is illuminating. Although Trump engaged in more explicitly anti-Muslim, bigoted rhetoric than his fellow primary candidates in 2016, every Republican presidential hopeful promised to rip up the deal, regardless of Iran’s compliance.
In many ways, the anti-Iran positions help clarify how little daylight there is between the so-called nationalist wing of the party and the more traditional neoconservative wing. Members of the nationalist wing — as epitomized by Trump, his adviser Steve Bannon, and Congresspeople Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert — are more likely to engage in open Islamophobia in staking out their anti-Iran positions. But much of the conservative, anti-Iran rhetoric from the Bush-era onward has relied on racist, Orientalist tropes about Iranians being untrustworthy, sneaky or duplicitous, or else suicidal, irrational and universally consumed by antisemitism. Far too much reporting in the United States has also uncritically advanced the idea that Iran is committed to acquiring nuclear weapons and is on the verge of doing so, regardless of changing conditions in the country.
Another aspect of the recent House GOP letter deserves attention: The letter highlighted the role Russia is reportedly playing in the negotiations, which have been largely indirect between Iran and the United States. Republicans promised to “investigate any connections” between the Iran talks and the concurrent diplomatic efforts to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine. The letter states: “If your dependency on the Russians to revive the JCPOA is weakening our deterrent posture with the Russians in other areas of the world, the American people deserve to know.”
As Carl Beijer wrote in reaction, Republicans are “suggest[ing] that if Biden manages to make a deal with Iran, it will be because he pulled his punches in Ukraine and thereby gained Russia’s assistance.” Beijer calls this effort “an absolutely monstrous gambit” and argues that, “[t]he GOP is hoping to peel support off Biden’s supporters among people who are anxious about Russia by promoting a narrative where any deal he cuts with Iran implies a backchannel deal with Putin as well. And where any de-escalation in Ukraine implies the same thing.”
The Biden administration and Democrats in Congress should forcefully push back against this kind of new Cold War reasoning and continue to pursue diplomacy with Iran, making every effort to de-escalate the looming conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Agitating for open conflict only serves the hardliners and war profiteers in the United States and abroad — and endangers countless lives.
Republicans, conservative pundits and Big Oil took less than 24 hours after Russia invaded Ukraine to begin advocating for more oil drilling and fracking in the name of supposed energy independence.
“Fracking may be America’s most powerful weapon against Russian aggression,” read an op-ed from a Bloomberg columnist who formerly led a Standard Oil and Koch family funded think tank.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) made a Twitter thread just as Vladimir Putin was announcing attacks on Ukraine. “As crisis looms in Ukraine, U.S. energy leadership is more important than ever,” API wrote, encouraging the White House to lease and permit even more drilling on and offshore.
In an earnings call on Thursday by natural gas exporter Cheniere, CEO Jack Fusco said that the invasion is good for business, Aronoff reported. “It’s tragic what’s going on in Eastern Europe, and it saddens me to see the satellite images on the newscreen that we’ve all witnessed this morning,” Fusco said. “But if anything, these high prices, the volatility, drive even more energy security and long-term contracting.”
Conservative lawmakers also hopped onto the Big Oil cronyism. Far right Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) posted a video saying that the federal government should immediately start producing oil at full capacity and exporting gas to Europe in order to combat inflation. Boebert has close ties to the fossil fuel industry; her husband has made hundreds of thousands of dollars consulting for Texas driller Terra Energy Partners.
Meanwhile, Republicans are saying that Democrats’ “green agenda” and supposed “war on American oil and gas” is to blame for Putin’s invasion – nevermind the fact that Biden approved oil and gas drilling at a higher rate than Trump did in 2021.
It’s extremely cynical to use this moment to encourage expanding fossil fuel production – and thus attempt to worsen the climate crisis – as thousands of people in Ukraine face instability, vicious attacks and uncertainty due to Russian forces. As conservatives and Big Oil attempt to exploit this moment for profit, antiwar activists in Russia and Ukraine are potentially putting their lives on the line to protest the Russian invasion.
Rather, oil and gas companies have already been making record profits by taking advantage of inflation and economic uncertainty, causing President Joe Biden and other Democrats to probe whether or not companies are breaking antitrust laws in order to pad their pockets. Indeed, in remarks on Thursday, Biden urged oil and gas companies to “not exploit this moment to hike their prices to raise profits.”
In the new GOP platform for the midterm elections, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Florida) has laid out the Republican party’s response to Democrats’ rallying cry to tax the rich: slash funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and tax the poor.
“All Americans should pay some income tax to have skin in the game, even if a small amount,” reads Scott’s 11 point plan. “Currently over half of Americans pay no income tax.”
While it’s true that about half of American households typically don’t pay income taxes, this is because their incomes aren’t high enough to pass the threshold for income tax liability; lower-income households also sometimes receive tax credits. Many low-income people still owe payroll taxes, however.
A new tax on the bottom half of income earners could have severely deleterious effects on the people already most in need of financial help, especially in a time when the wealth gap in the U.S. is multiplying. Such a measure would likely be extremely unpopular, and has already garnered criticism from top Democrats, who have pointed out that Republicans want to raise taxes on over half of Americans.
Scott denied on Fox News that his plan would implement new income taxes on over half of the country, despite the fact that this proposal is clearly outlined in his “Plan to Rescue America.” Other Republicans defended the 11-point plan. “He’s at least raising important questions over, ‘Should every American have some stake in the country?’” said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
While he is advocating to raise taxes on lower-income families, Scott is also attempting to give the rich even more opportunities to dodge taxes. If Republicans retake power, the plan reads, “We will immediately cut the IRS funding and workforce by 50 percent.”
This would have an enormous impact on tax enforcement in the country. Republicans have already gutted the IRS over the years; in fact, the agency is so underfunded that it’s warned that this year’s tax season will be challenging because it is still catching up with last year’s tax filings.
As a result, the IRS hasn’t had the resources for years to go after wealthy tax dodgers, who can use sophisticated methods of tax dodging that are too complex for the agency to be able to track. Rather, with an insufficient budget and workforce, the IRS disproportionately audits low-income people who benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit. Meanwhile, the nation’s wealthiest people get away with paying little to no federal income taxes at all, allowing them to continue to accumulate unfathomable amounts of wealth.
The plan gives no real reason for gutting the IRS, though Republicans often argue for less punitive regulations for corporations and the rich, while advocating for more regulations for the poor. Democrats have proposed increasing IRS funding, but Republicans shot down a plan to increase the agency’s funding in negotiations for last year’s infrastructure bill, as corporations lobbied hard against the proposal.
If implemented, the GOP’s plan would raise taxes on the poor while providing even more tax loopholes for the rich. It’s ironic that the GOP is arguing that this plan would ensure everyone in the U.S. has “skin in the game” in order to benefit from public services or contribute to society, when it is largely the wealthy who get undue tax breaks despite not needing the extra funds to survive.
Scott’s plan also includes numerous extremist proposals that could actively harm the government and the public. The plan contains attacks on transgender people, leftists, schools, people of color, and much more. As part of the political right wing’s fascist attacks on education, the plan would shutter the Department of Education entirely. It would also bar any increases to the debt ceiling. Republicans have advocated for such limits to demonstrate their so-called fiscal responsibility, despite the fact that not allowing raises to the debt ceiling could be calamitous.
Three Republican candidates for attorney general in Michigan, vying to win their party’s primary so they can attempt to oust the current Democratic incumbent, indicated support for undoing a landmark Supreme Court decision from over half a century ago that lifted restrictions to accessing birth control.
Former state House Speaker Tom Leonard, current state Rep. Ryan Berman, and Matthew DePerno, a lawyer in the state who has pushed false claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election, met on Friday in Alpena, Michigan, for a debate over who should become the Republican nominee for state Attorney General. During the event, a member of the audience asked the candidates what their views were on the Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut, a ruling made in 1965 that guaranteed couples in the U.S. the right to receive information on and access to contraceptives.
All three candidates were “caught off guard” by the question, according to reporting from The Detroit News, and were apparently ignorant of what the ruling entailed. Upon further clarification, however, all three candidates indicated opposition to the Supreme Court’s ruling, saying that it violated states’ rights to restrict access to birth control for their residents.
“This case, much like Roe v. Wade, I believe was wrongly decided, because this is, it was an issue that trampled upon state’s rights,” Leonard said in response. “It was an issue that should have been left up to the states.”
“The Supreme Court … has to decide, mark my words, that the privacy issue currently is unworkable. It’s going to be a states’ rights issue on all these things, as it should be,” chimed in DePerno.
Berman said he needed to do more research on the ruling, but also stated that he’s for “states’ rights” and in favor of limiting “judicial activism” at the federal level.
Current Democratic state Attorney General Dana Nessel responded to the comments from the three men with shock, writing on Twitter her own response to their views.
“The party of ‘limited government’ wants direct involvement in everything you do in the bedroom,” Nessel wrote. “The Handmaids Tale is no longer dystopian fiction.”
In another tweet, Nessel made a promise to voters to defend against the undoing of Griswold.
“As MI Attorney General, I will continue to defend the constitutional right to privacy and to ensure (and, oh my God, I can’t believe I have to say this) your legal right to use contraceptives in our state,” Nessel said. “This is definitely a campaign promise I never imagined having to make.”
Seeking to clarify their stances, the Republican candidates for attorney general tried to stipulate that they weren’t against contraception or birth control, but rather the way the Supreme Court had ruled in 1965.
“Our rights should be grounded in the Constitution’s text and tradition, not a judge’s feelings,” Leonard said in a statement on Monday, adding that Nessel’s comments indicated, in his mind, that she is a “fringe culture war activist.”
Leonard, who admitted his ignorance about the ruling, wrongly purported that the Constitution was not involved in the forming of Griswold. In fact, several constitutional amendments and the precedent they created were cited in the Court’s 7-2 decision forming a penumbra of rights that allowed the justices to affirm a right to privacy in certain situations.
“Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship,” the Court’s opinion stated.
The ruling also referenced the Ninth Amendment, found within the Bill of Rights, which recognized that the “enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Responding to Leonard’s comments made on Monday, Nessel asked whether other rulings from the Court – including those disallowing restrictions on marriage rights, access to education, and other topics – were improperly made, since they trampled on supposed states’ rights.
“If Griswold was wrongly decided and criminalization of contraception is a ‘state’s rights’ issue the legislature gets to vote on, what about Loving v VA? Brown v Bd of Ed? Lawrence v Texas? Obergefell v Hodges? Bostock v Clayton Co? Also all wrongly decided & fringe war activism?” Nessel asked.
The Louisiana Senate recently continued the state’s long history of racial oppression by voting down Sen. Cleo Fields’s congressional redistricting map. What’s more, the Louisiana House voted down Rep. Randal Gaines’s congressional redistricting map. Gaines is a veteran and civil rights attorney who represents one of the areas hardest hit by Hurricane Ida (river parishes), and Fields is an attorney and former congressman. Gaines’s and Fields’s proposals included two majority-minority districts (electoral districts where the majority of the constituents are people of color) giving them an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice — something Black voters in the state advocated for. Since the Black population has grown in Louisiana, an additional seat representing this shift is warranted, just and fair.
But in Louisiana, as in other parts of the country, map drawers are refusing to create new electoral opportunities for communities of color. What’s more, they are actively dismantling Black voting power by carving up Black communities in some states or packing Black communities into fewer districts in other states. These manipulative tactics make it harder for Black voters to elect candidates of choice, regardless of turnout or Black population growth.
We’ve seen this play out time and again in Louisiana, where Black voters have not always been treated equitably. My organization, the Power Coalition for Equity & Justice, understood this history and participated in a statewide roadshow allowing legislators and voters to directly engage around redistricting. Throughout the roadshow, which ran from October 20, 2021, through January 20, 2022, voters shared extensive testimony on the importance of representation.
Across the state, countless voters expressed the need for legislators to add an additional majority-minority district given that 33 percent of the state’s population is Black. Louisiana has six congressional districts; one-third of six is two. Rather than surrendering to the will of the people or the logic of population growth, legislators continue machinations that will silence voters.
State Sen. Sharon Hewitt suggested she was actually protecting Black voters by not creating a second majority-minority district because she didn’t think a 51 or 52 percent majority-Black district would turn out to vote, meaning they wouldn’t be able to elect a candidate of choice. But many Black voters would take 51 or 52 percent any day over not having a committed and representative voice. No legislator should be able to unilaterally decide what voters need; voters should have more influence.
In the absence of a process that levels the playing field by allowing voters to select who represents them, legislators have outsized influence. For instance, our current congressional House delegation sits on several powerful committees. As the second-poorest state in the country, Louisianians are not benefiting or growing from this representation. In fact, our delegation recently voted against the president’s infrastructure bill, with the exception of Congressman Troy Carter, who currently holds the only majority-Black seat. Their resistance could have blocked a wonderful opportunity to invest in crumbling infrastructure. This is a risk we cannot continue to take.
It is clear that any maps with an additional district will never make it out of committee. State leaders will certainly try to amend on the floor, much like they did on the Senate side, when State Senator Fields made a powerful and compelling plea for his colleagues to do the right thing.
The next step is for a map with only one majority-minority district to go before Gov. John Bel Edwards, who can and should veto the map. Edwards should unite with the people of color in his state, particularly since Black voters helped propel him into office. For his part, Governor Edwards said he would veto unfair maps.
He would be in good company. Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky and Gov. Laura Kelly of Kansas vetoed the racially discriminatory maps put forth by legislatures in their states. Their vetoes were overturned, but their willingness to support the people of their state will be reflected in the history books. Moreover, several residents from three Kansas counties sued to block the state’s newly passed congressional maps, which conservatives in the state passed in early February.
Louisiana has the second-largest Black population in the country, second only to Mississippi. If the governors of Kansas and Kentucky, who have much smaller Black populations, can stand for equity and fairness, Governor Edwards can certainly do the same.
There can be no protection without representation.
Much of what has happened during our redistricting process seems to be heading toward litigation. I hope Louisiana’s leaders remember that we experienced a 4.8 percent drop in the white population, and demographic trends show that it will continue to decrease. My question is: When our population shifts to a white minority, will legislators think it is fair, given the decisions they have made to continue to racially gerrymander and silence the voices of voters of color? I hope Louisiana’s leaders consider that people of color represent more than 40 percent of the population, and with the current maps being considered, only receive less than 25 percent of the representation. In what scenario would anyone take less than they deserve?
The truth is that immigration is driving population shifts in the United States. And most of the people immigrating to this country are people of color, including Black immigrants. Legislators cannot hold communities of color hostage by continually drawing district lines that ignore population growth.
As we think about redistricting, we should ground it in the broader fight for freedom. As Davante Lewis, director of public affairs and outreach for the Louisiana Budget Project, noted in his testimony before the House Governmental Affairs Committee, Black people have endured decades of trauma. Legislators can help ensure progress by drawing fair maps and allowing voters of color to elect candidates of their choice. To gaslight voters by downplaying their population growth is a continuation of their traumatic history.
All people deserve elected officials who will advocate for them. Legislators should not be able to cherry-pick their voters. But unless and until we have an equitable process, legislators will continue to thwart the will of the people, especially when the people are Black, people of color, or persons living in poverty.
Just 13 of the 143 Texas Republicans running for Congress acknowledge that the results of the 2020 election are “legitimate,” according to a survey.
Hearst Newspapers sent questions about the election to all 143 candidates and only a baker’s dozen accepted the results of the election despite repeated recounts, audits and court cases that have found no evidence of any fraud or election-rigging that could have impacted the results, according to the Houston Chronicle.
At least 42 of the candidates claimed that the election was stolen outright, called the results illegitimate or said they would have voted not to certify the results after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Another 11 candidates falsely claimed that there was enough fraud or irregularities to raise doubts about the election results. Another 19 have listed election fraud and irregularities as a key issue, without taking a stance on whether the 2020 results were legitimate.
“We’ve seen across the board, the Democrats have always cheated,” Jonathan Hullihan, a former Navy lawyer running for the seat of retiring Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, said at a recent candidate forum without any evidence. “Eighty-one million votes for Joe Biden? I just don’t believe it.”
Two of the candidates participated in the storming of the Capitol. Alma Arredondo-Lynch, who is challenging freshman Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, bragged that she had an “exciting and unforgettable” time at the protest outside the Capitol, blaming the pro-Trump violence on antifa and Black Lives Matter with no evidence. Sam Montoya, a former staffer at Alex Jones’ Infowars running in the state’s 35th congressional district, was arrested after filming himself and others invading the Capitol and has pleaded not guilty.
Even some Republicans who have acknowledged that President Joe Biden’s win was legitimate raised questions about the election.
“There are a lot of questions and issues regarding the 2020 election that need to be resolved and that are still being looked into, but there is not enough evidence to suggest that the election was stolen or that he is illegitimate,” Greg Thorne, who said he would have certified the election, unlike incumbent opponent Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, told the Chronicle.
The 2020 election has become a key litmus test in Republican primaries as voters continue to be bombarded with false claims of fraud stemming from Donald Trump’s unending propaganda campaign to deny his loss. Trump’s Justice Department and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s “Election Fraud Unit” all found no evidence to support any of the widespread fraud claims.
Two-thirds of Texas Republican voters believe Biden’s win was illegitimate, according to a recent poll from the University of Texas at Austin, compared to just 22% who accept the election results. Nationwide, just 21% of Republicans believe Biden’s win was legitimate, according to a December poll from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
“The belief in widespread voter fraud is becoming the article of faith among Republicans,” Joshua Blank, research director for the Texas Politics Project at UT Austin, told the Chronicle.
Blank said candidates’ position on this question is a signal to voters of their fealty to Trump.
“Is there any daylight between you and the former president?” he said. “It’s not necessarily about voting per se, but the extent to which these candidates can present themselves as on the president’s team.”
Though political candidates are notorious for playing fast and loose with the facts, candidates echoing repeatedly debunked lies about the election is a fairly new phenomenon. The Trump administration’s top cybersecurity officials called the 2020 race “the most secure in American history.” Republican Texas Secretary of State Ruth Hughs said the election in the state was “smooth and secure,” which appeared to have led Republican state lawmakers to block her confirmation.
It’s not just Texas: Hundreds of Republicans who deny or cast doubt on the election results are running for Congress nationwide. Perhaps more alarmingly, more than 80 election deniers are running to run, oversee or protect elections in their states and even more are seeking to take over local election jobs.
Many Republican state lawmakers have also gone all-in on Trump’s Big Lie with legislation aimed at restricting ballot access in the wake of record turnout in the 2020 race. Republicans last year enacted 34 new voting laws in 19 states, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, and have already introduced at least 250 new voting bills this year.
Texas’ sweeping new voting law, which restricts numerous forms of voting, has already become a nightmare for election administrators with primary voting underway. The state’s new voter ID requirements have caused some counties to reject nearly half of mail-in ballot applications and mail ballots.
In Harris County, which includes Houston, election officials have been forced to reject about 40% of applications and ballots, said Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo. “We have the receipts,” she tweeted.
In Travis County, which includes Austin, officials have also had to deal with a big increase in rejections.
“Voters are being mistreated,” County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir said last month. “My friends, this is what voter suppression looks like.”
Tennessee’s Board of Medical Examiners unanimously adopted in September a statement that said doctors spreading COVID misinformation — such as suggesting that vaccines contain microchips — could jeopardize their license to practice.
“I’m very glad that we’re taking this step,” Dr. Stephen Loyd, the panel’s vice president, said at the time. “If you’re spreading this willful misinformation, for me it’s going to be really hard to do anything other than put you on probation or take your license for a year. There has to be a message sent for this. It’s not OK.”
The board’s statement was posted on a government website.
But before any physicians could be reprimanded for spreading falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines or treatments, Republican lawmakers threatened to disband the medical board.
The growing tension in Tennessee between conservative lawmakers and the state’s medical board may be the most prominent example in the country. But the Federation of State Medical Boards, which created the language adopted by at least 15 state boards, is tracking legislation introduced by Republicans in at least 14 states that would restrict a medical board’s authority to discipline doctors for their advice on COVID.
Dr. Humayun Chaudhry, the federation’s CEO, called it “an unwelcome trend.” The nonprofit association, based in Euless, Texas, says the statement is merely a COVID-specific restatement of an existing rule: that doctors who engage in behavior that puts patients at risk could face disciplinary action.
Although doctors have leeway to decide which treatments to provide, the medical boards that oversee them have broad authority over licensing. Often, doctors are investigated for violating guidelines on prescribing high-powered drugs. But physicians are sometimes punished for other “unprofessional conduct.” In 2013, Tennessee’s board fined U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais for separately having sexual relations with two female patients more than a decade earlier.
Still, stopping doctors from sharing unsound medical advice has proved challenging. Even defining misinformation has been difficult. And during the pandemic, resistance from some state legislatures is complicating the effort.
A relatively small group of physicians peddle COVID misinformation, but many of them associate with America’s Frontline Doctors. Its founder, Dr. Simone Gold, has claimed patients are dying from COVID treatments, not the virus itself. Dr. Sherri Tenpenny said in a legislative hearing in Ohio that the COVID vaccine could magnetize patients. Dr. Stella Immanuel has pushed hydroxychloroquine as a COVID cure in Texas, although clinical trials showed that it had no benefit. None of them agreed to requests for comment.
The Texas Medical Board fined Immanuel $500 for not informing a patient of the risks associated with using hydroxychloroquine as an off-label COVID treatment.
In Tennessee, state lawmakers called a special legislative session in October to address COVID restrictions, and Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed a sweeping package of bills that push back against pandemic rules. One included language directed at the medical board’s recent COVID policy statement, making it more difficult for the panel to investigate complaints about physicians’ advice on COVID vaccines or treatments.
In November, Republican state Rep. John Ragan sent the medical board a letter demanding that the statement be deleted from the state’s website. Ragan leads a legislative panel that had raised the prospect of defunding the state’s health department over its promotion of COVID vaccines to teens.
Among his demands, Ragan listed 20 questions he wanted the medical board to answer in writing, including why the misinformation “policy” was proposed nearly two years into the pandemic, which scholars would determine what constitutes misinformation, and how was the “policy” not an infringement on the doctor-patient relationship.
“If you fail to act promptly, your organization will be required to appear before the Joint Government Operations Committee to explain your inaction,” Ragan wrote in the letter, obtained by KHN and Nashville Public Radio.
In response to a request for comment, Ragan said that “any executive agency, including Board of Medical Examiners, that refuses to follow the law is subject to dissolution.”
He set a deadline of Dec. 7.
In Florida, a Republican-sponsored bill making its way through the state legislature proposes to ban medical boards from revoking or threatening to revoke doctors’ licenses for what they say unless “direct physical harm” of a patient occurred. If the publicized complaint can’t be proved, the board could owe a doctor up to $1.5 million in damages.
Although Florida’s medical board has not adopted the Federation of State Medical Boards’ COVID misinformation statement, the panel has considered misinformation complaints against physicians, including the state’s surgeon general, Dr. Joseph Ladapo.
Chaudhry said he’s surprised just how many COVID-related complaints are being filed across the country. Often, boards do not publicize investigations before a violation of ethics or standards is confirmed. But in response to a survey by the federation in late 2021, two-thirds of state boards reported an increase in misinformation complaints. And the federation said 12 boards had taken action against a licensed physician.
“At the end of the day, if a physician who is licensed engages in activity that causes harm, the state medical boards are the ones that historically have been set up to look into the situation and make a judgment about what happened or didn’t happen,” Chaudhry said. “And if you start to chip away at that, it becomes a slippery slope.”
The Georgia Composite Medical Board adopted a version of the federation’s misinformation guidance in early November and has been receiving 10 to 20 complaints each month, said Dr. Debi Dalton, the chairperson. Two months in, no one had been sanctioned.
Dalton said that even putting out a misinformation policy leaves some “gray” area. Generally, physicians are expected to follow the “consensus,” rather than “the newest information that pops up on social media,” she said.
“We expect physicians to think ethically, professionally, and with the safety of patients in mind,” Dalton said.
A few physician groups are resisting attempts to root out misinformation, including the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, known for its stands against government regulation.
Some medical boards have opted against taking a public stand against misinformation.
The Alabama Board of Medical Examiners discussed signing on to the federation’s statement, according to the minutes from an October meeting. But after debating the potential legal ramifications in a private executive session, the board opted not to act.
In Tennessee, the Board of Medical Examiners met on the day Ragan had set as the deadline and voted to remove the misinformation statement from its website to avoid being called into a legislative hearing. But then, in late January, the board decided to stick with the policy — although it did not republish the statement online immediately — and more specifically defined misinformation, calling it “content that is false, inaccurate or misleading, even if spread unintentionally.”
Board members acknowledged they would likely get more pushback from lawmakers but said they wanted to protect their profession from interference.
“Doctors who are putting forth good evidence-based medicine deserve the protection of this board so they can actually say, ‘Hey, I’m in line with this guideline, and this is a source of truth,’” said Dr. Melanie Blake, the board’s president. “We should be a source of truth.”
The medical board was looking into nearly 30 open complaints related to COVID when its misinformation statement came down from its website. As of early February, no Tennessee physician had faced disciplinary action.
Kaiser Health News, a nonprofit health newsroom whose stories appear in news outlets nationwide, is an editorially independent part of the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The corporate news media has spent the last three decades ensorcelled by the indefatigable “Dems in Disarray” trope. Calling it out as a trope is actually so commonplace now — because the practice itself is so commonplace — that it has almost become a trope itself. I feel bad for the journalists stapled to that beat right now, because the real show is down the hall. Mitch McConnell, that banality of evil made flesh, has been revealed to be running a massive behind-the-scenes effort to displace Trump (himself a boorish evil made flesh, and thus irony is made flesh) from the Republican Party. If history holds, the two old curs will soon be at each other’s throats right out there in the campaign-year spotlight.
You have to wonder what it must be like to be McConnell these days. The minority leader for a year now, McConnell’s power and influence seem only to have grown in the intervening time. He had help in this, or course; the months-long policy debate within House Democratic circles devoured the summer and fall. McConnell appeared to have little else to do in that stretch except shore up his caucus, offer the occasional honeyed remark for Trump, and wait to see what emerged from the House. Every 16 hours or so, he’d send out another press release, like a grim bell tolling in the night: “We still say ‘no’ to everything… We still say ‘no’ to everything… We still sa– hey, is this thing on?” Tap, tap, tap.
Of course, McConnell had plenty to do. He made it clear that any legislation seeking to repair the Voting Rights Act was doomed. He played chicken with the debt limit and the government funding deadline. He also made sure Joe Manchin knew that at least one person — Mitch — appreciated the West Virginia senator’s infinite enmity and impatience for President Biden’s domestic agenda.
“Something is broken in the Senate,” Peter Nicholas wrote for The Atlantic at the peak of that long summer. “McConnell’s sustained commitment to stopping Democratic priorities, whatever the cost, has deepened the dysfunction that makes many Republican voters doubt the efficacy of government in the first place. In most democracies, a stubborn minority party cannot stop the majority from debating the nation’s worst problems, much less solving them. McConnell is one reason the United States remains an exception.”
Beneath the surface of seemingly still Republican waters during that time, however, lurked a riptide that threatened to suck McConnell’s political boat far out to sea. From his bespattered perch at Mar-a-Lago, the self-styled once-and-future-king Trump continued to ply his ragged wares, surrounded by a motley constellation of legal hacks, politicians seeking his precious endorsement, misfit media types who see Satan in a vaccine syringe, and former White House staffers who have nowhere else to go because nobody is hiring anyone from that White House. Would you? If so, count the forks.
The drumbeat emanating from this seething coalition grows louder by the day: “Trump won the election… crime of the century… say it… say it and join us… say it or we will bury you.” Over the summer, most Republicans were content to either support Trump’s mayhem campaign and keep their seat safe, or just kept quiet and hoped the eye of Sauron did not fall upon them demanding a reckoning and an operatic oath of fidelity. They are incredibly powerful within the party, that Trumpy bunch. They believe their time is at hand.
So it must have come as a natural shock to see the New York Timesheadline pop on Sunday morning: “Inside McConnell’s Campaign to Take Back the Senate and Thwart Trump.”
If McConnell hoped to keep his anti-Trump activities under wraps, the Times put paid to that with a meaty thud. “As Mr. Trump works to retain his hold on the Republican Party, elevating a slate of friendly candidates in midterm elections, Mr. McConnell and his allies are quietly, desperately maneuvering to try to thwart him,” reads the Times report. “The loose alliance, which was once thought of as the G.O.P. establishment, for months has been engaged in a high-stakes candidate recruitment campaign, full of phone calls, meetings, polling memos and promises of millions of dollars. It’s all aimed at recapturing the Senate majority, but the election also represents what could be Republicans’ last chance to reverse the spread of Trumpism before it fully consumes their party.”
You have to hand it to McConnell; he does a mean Iago. Pulling off a stunt like this is like trying to arrange a massive surprise party where your worst enemy gets fired when they walk through the door. Sure, Mitch clapped back at Trump and the Republican National Committee over their description of the January 6 Capitol attack as “legitimate political discourse,” but he wasn’t straying terribly far with that; he called it a “a violent insurrection” on Monday, which is pretty much what he said the day it happened (though he’s been inconsistent in his condemnation, at other times). All the other days, however, the days where he carried gallons of post-election water for Trump while publicly avoiding any pointed critiques of the former president… that, as it turns out, was Mitch waiting in the tall grass.
At the end of things, it is robustly important to remember that the labors of McConnell in this endeavor are in like kind with those of David Frum, Colin Powell, and the other “Never Trump” Republicans who squeezed out a few good anti-Trump commercials back when there was a market for such tedious things. They are not your friend, any more than McConnell is. These people agree with virtually every policy idea the Trump administration had to offer, because all the Trump administration had to offer was road-bald radials from 1981, GOP policy down the line. They are fine with that, Mitch especially. They don’t like Trump because they think he’s “bad for the brand.”
According to the Times article, McConnell’s efforts to recruit a murderer’s row of Trump-resistant congressional candidates is meeting with limited success. There is daylight, but not quite enough for establishment Republicans to get excited about. What may be exciting is the trend that will not quit: Trump refuses to talk about anything other than the election (and he never stops talking), and implicit with his endorsement is the promise that his chosen candidates will follow suit.
The base will lap it up as usual, but even the rosiest forecasts show that number to be dwindling as voters focus more and more on issues like the pandemic and the economy. The GOP may be bereft of policy ideas, but an increasing number of them know a dead socket when they see one. More to the point, they are all too familiar with the results when the base chooses their favorite sons and daughters to run in tight races. “Privately, [McConnell] has declared he won’t let unelectable ‘goofballs’ win Republican primaries,” reads the Times report.
Them’s fightin’ words, Mitch… but gadzooks, who do you root for in that brawl? The insurgent racists and sideways conspiracists who pepper the Trumpian horde in their quest to be the face of the party? Or the establishment Republicans like McConnell, desperate in their senescence, who have lost control of the party’s base even as they once created it. The prodigal son has come home.
Texas’s abortion rate fell by 60 percent in the month after the state’s abortion ban was enacted, according to data released last week by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.
In August of 2021, providers reported performing about 5,404 induced terminations, or abortions, for Texas residents in the state. After the ban went into effect on the 1st of September, effectively nullifying Roe v. Wade in Texas, providers reported performing only 2,197 abortions that month – about a 60 percent reduction from August’s rate.
September’s rate is also a sharp reduction from the same time the previous year; in September of 2020, providers reported performing 4,511 abortions, or about two times the number of abortions done in September 2021. This is about on par with what researchers found in October of last year.
The agency says that it will be releasing more data from 2021 on a monthly basis, though the numbers may not be uniform because enforcement of the ban has wavered; after it went into effect in September, the policy was struck down by courts and reinstated. However, the policy is likely to stick around indefinitely for now.
Texas’s abortion ban, which was passed by Republican lawmakers last year, is the most restrictive abortion law in effect in the country. The law bans abortion after cardiac activity can be detected, about six weeks into a pregnancy; this time frame has no scientific basis and is so early on in the pregancy that most people don’t even know they’re pregnant. The law doesn’t provide exceptions for cases of rape or incest.
The law is especially cruel because it places the onus of enforcement on private individuals rather than the state, allowing private citizens to sue medical providers that violate the law for $10,000 or more. This essentially dispatches anti-abortion vigilantes to hunt down anyone who has helped an individual get an abortion, including abortion providers or even Uber drivers.
Abortion providers say that the law has cast a widespread chilling effect on medical professionals in the state. One Texas provider told The Lily, for instance, that he used to perform up to 30 abortions a day – but now that the ban is in place, he only performs two or three abortions a day.
Instead, patients have had to travel out of state in order to obtain the procedure. Planned Parenthood centers in surrounding states saw a 1,082 percent increase in patients with Texas zip codes in September of 2021 over the previous two years.
Because providers in the states immediately surrounding Texas, like Oklahoma and Louisiana, have been heavily booked as a result of the ban, Texas residents have had to travel even further to have the procedure done.
In November, the Guttmacher Institute found that Texans have traveled to Illinois, Ohio, Washington, Maryland and other states in order to obtain abortions. A clinic in Tennessee, which is nearly a thousand miles away from Texas, said that it saw double the amount of patients from Texas in September than it did in all of 2020.
Such trips may become far more common if the Supreme Court decides to overturn Roe v. Wade this year, as the Court’s conservative justices seem poised to do. According to the Guttmacher Institute, about 26 states are likely or certain to ban abortion as soon as Roe is no longer in effect. This means that the average American would have to travel 250 miles round trip to access their nearest abortion provider.
A new wave of power grabs by Georgia’s Republican legislators is threatening to wrest control of key local government bodies where Democrats, often people of color, have recently been elected and currently hold governing majorities.
The Republican moves are an effort to consolidate political control after passing sweeping legislation in 2021 that limited popular early voting options, and allowed state officials to oust county election officials and possibly overturn results.
The latest power grabs are occurring under the umbrella of reconfiguring political districts after the 2020 census, and they target county commissions, school boards and prosecutors in the metro-Atlanta region and other areas where recent elections have left Republicans as political minorities.
“They are not waiting for the [next] election,” said Richard Rose, Atlanta NAACP president. “That’s not quick enough for the powers that run Georgia.”
“They used to believe in local control,” said Helen Butler, a civil rights activist who was purged from Morgan County’s Board of Elections by GOP legislation passed in 2021. “The legislature is now coming in and saying, ‘we don’t like the maps that local people put together,’ and they’re drawing their own maps… They want total control.”
Legislation that is now progressing includes Republican-drawn maps for county commissions in several metro-Atlanta counties, where numerous elected Democrats, who are Black, say they are being targeted for replacement by Republicans, who are white. In one of those counties, Gwinnett, home to the state’s largest school district and most diverse demographics, a bill would make its school board elections nonpartisan — masking a candidate’s party — and reschedule the election months before November, when voter turnout is lower.
The school board’s new chair, Tarece Johnson, speaking at a statehouse press conference on January 27, said the Senate-passed legislation was “targeting people of color and attempting to suppress the vote, erase their historical truths and censor diverse perspectives.” Republicans pressing for the change have attacked the board’s leadership, which only recently changed to control by elected Democrats, as incompetent.
That same charge, of managerial incompetence, has been used to justify legislation that passed in 2021 to remove local election officials, such as in Spalding County on Atlanta’s outskirts. It is also the rationale of another bill that would allow a newly created state panel to fire elected prosecutors, which is the latest development in a GOP effort to unseat Deborah Gonzalez, the state’s first Latina district attorney, who won after pledging to ignore low-level drug offenses.
“It was a very progressive platform, and I was very vocal about wanting to run to address systemic racism,” Gonzalez told the Marshall Project, a media outlet covering the justice system.
County-level partisan targeting often escapes coverage by national media. In Georgia, however, a national battleground state where demographic changes have evenly divided its electorate, the Republican takeover attempts follow 2021 legislation that rolled back early in-person and mail-based voting options, and empowered a GOP-run state board to purge election officials in eight counties. Voting rights advocates fear 2021’s legislation could set the stage for overturning election results. The latest power grabs worry but do not surprise advocates.
“We are hearing more and more that the worst abuses, the worst discriminatory redistricting and gerrymandering is playing out at the local level,” said Yurij Rudensky, a redistricting counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. “This is becoming an increasing concern in states that were formerly covered by [preclearance in] Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This is the first redistricting cycle to occur without those protections.”
“In decades past, all of these sorts of changes, whether it is where district lines fall or the size of local governing bodies, county school boards, city councils, etc., would be assessed [by federal officials in Washington] for their tendency to diminish the influence of communities of color,” he said. “And there was certainly a deterrent effect because a legislature like Georgia’s legislature would know that what they were doing would have to pass muster.”
But outside of the Atlanta-based policy and activist circles that are tracking the power grabs, many Georgia voters are not yet aware of the Republicans’ latest moves, said Julius Johnson, who runs a democracy center in rural Hawkinsville — in mid-Georgia — that includes a food bank, meeting space, Black history museum and library, and hosts voter drives.
“Typically, locally, people don’t realize the importance of the local elections,” said Johnson, a Democrat who lost a 2020 bid for the state Senate. “We have to articulate very clearly what’s happening here — ‘Here is the Republican strategy to get these people in at the local levels’ — so that we can get people to step up their game with participation and keep people voting.”
Deepening Structural Racism?
Many Democrats havedescribed the latest GOP moves as the latest structural racism in Georgia politics. The bills to redraw local districts, change who serves on local boards, alter the timing of local elections, and expand ways to unseat locally elected officials are seen by these officials as imposing rules that will steepen the path for people of color to hold majority power. The latest bills come after Republicans in 2021 reversed policies that made early voting easier.
“They’re leveraging their power wherever they happen to have it,” said Ray McClendon, Atlanta NAACP political action chair. “If you look at all of these [voting] changes, it is not to take us back to Jim Crow where you have to count jellybeans in a jar to vote. All they need to do is just take off three, four or five percent of voter turnout and they will accomplish what they want.”
McClendon said that the GOP’s 2021 election reforms were designed to discourage voting and disqualify votes cast early — which is when many working-class Georgians prefer to vote. Unlike the aftermath of the 2020 election when Donald Trump pressured top state officials to “find” enough votes for him to win, McClendon said the GOP’s strategy is for local officials to winnow votes.
“The combination of all of these [rule] changes on the mail-in ballot, no longer being able to have Sunday voting in certain cases because they stacked local election boards, the narrowing of the dates for early voting, the cutting back on the number of voting locations and drop boxes — they don’t sound like they are onerous provisions individually,” McClendon explained. “But when you take them collectively, and you take the fact that every one of these is in a state that is purple, these are steps that are intended to ensure minority rule.”
Data suggests McClendon’s analysis is correct. In November 2021’s municipal elections, the number of rejected absentee ballots increased 45-fold when compared to the percentage that were rejected in November 2020’s presidential election. The GOP’s 2021 law required that all ballot applications and returned ballots be accompanied by a photocopy of a voter’s ID.
Republicans, notably, have rejected the accusations of racism surrounding their voting reforms and county gerrymanders as “ugly” and “baseless.” They have defended their bills as efforts to make local government more representative, especially in parts of Atlanta where whites may now be in the political minority. (GOP sections of the city have repeatedly tried to secede.)
“I do believe that all of the communities in our county matter,” Rep. Bonnie Rich, R-Suwanee, whose map redrawing county commissioner districts in Gwinnett County passed her chamber, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “That is why I drew lines that represent those distinct communities.”
Rep. Houston Gaines, a Republican who represents a portion of Athens, a city about 70 miles east of Atlanta, told the newspaper that the legislature-imposed maps “protect the voice of every Athenian… [thus] ensuring greater opportunities for minority communities.”
Critics like the NAACP’s Rose say that rhetoric — portraying white Republicans as victims of discrimination after losing to people of color — is offensive. It also masks what is unfolding.
“It is a complete overhaul of the system that we know of,” Rose said. “They have to make sure that they control the elections, that they control the counting, that they control how absentee ballots are processed… And, in some counties, like Gwinnett, for example, where the county commission is all Democratic, they now want to change that. They want to change the school board… They feel they must change it if it does not allow them to maintain power.”
Georgia’s 2022 Primaries
There are many signs that Georgia’s upcoming primaries on May 24 will be chaotic for election officials, candidates, campaigns, and groups urging voters to turn out. The ballot will feature each party’s nominees for federal, state, and local office, including local judgeships. In short, the legislature’s election law and voting rule changes (and federal redistricting litigation) have left many issues unresolved, which makes it harder to inform voters about what will affect them.
In August 2021, the Georgia Association of Voter Registrars and Election Officials (GAVREO) passed a resolution in which they “implore[d]” the legislature to postpone 2022’s primary from May to June, because the officials needed time to make “complicated redistricting changes,” such as finalizing maps, allocating resources and related planning before candidates could file to run for office.
GAVREO’s plea was ignored, just as, several months before, a handful of counties with Black election officials (administrators and policymakers) were “blind-sided” when their lobbyists discovered that GOP legislators were drafting bills to fire them (by requiring they live in the county) or to purge election board members (who were Democrats), according to emails obtained by American Oversight, a progressive law group that has used public document requests to expose numerous anti-democratic effort by pro-Trump Republicans.
All of Georgia’s 159 counties are affected by the post-2020 legislation. But the counties that have been additionally targeted in specific legislation have notable populations of color. As a result, organizers like the NAACP’s McClendon or Helen Butler, who is executive director of the Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda, a civil rights group, have been scrambling to track the changes to help voters chart a path through what she says is intentional chaos.
“They’re throwing so much stuff at us that we just have to put things in place,” Butler said. “Our ‘Democracy Squads’ monitor boards of elections to see what they’re planning on doing with regards to the vote… We send people to meetings. We get their minutes. We basically try to get people to report to us in real time so that we know what’s going on.”
“The chaos is real,” McClendon said. “It builds on what they are already doing to marginalize a percentage of voters. They are creating so many whack-a-mole situations that all we are doing as activists is trying to beat down one thing after another and then another thing pops us.”
In the meantime, the NAACP and its allies from the 2020 campaign — which include professional associations in communities of color and data-driven grassroots campaign experts — are looking to revive those networks and stand up “democracy centers” across the state, so that ordinary Georgians have trusted sources for addressing local needs, including voting.
“We have talked about the issues to raise, and one has to be true patriotism,” Rose said. “You cannot support the insurrection of January 6, and if you’re a veteran you cannot support the Confederacy… We’re also going to talk about bread-and-butter issues like Medicaid expansion, because rural hospitals are closing. And education, because the GOP is losing its mind over critical race theory, which has never been taught in public schools.”
But while Rose is looking to reactivate the grassroots networks that led Georgia to elect a Democratic presidential candidate and two Democratic U.S. senators in 2020, the Republican-run state legislature is seeking to reconfigure state and county election districts and boards in Georgia’s blue epicenters — by finding ways to oust popularly elected representatives.
“It’s untethering policymaking from public will and from voter preference in response to changing demographics and the political changes and policy preferences changes that go along with that,” said the Brennan Center’s Rudensky. “It’s very concerning because it really cuts to the heart of what our system is supposed to be about.”
Several campaign committees dedicated to electing Democrats have indicated that they will highlight the GOP’s consistent downplaying of the January 6 Capitol attack as part of their midterm election strategy — putting particular emphasis on language that was used by GOP leaders in the censure of Republican Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-Illinois) and Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming).
In that document, the Republican National Committee (RNC) rebuked Kinzinger and Cheney for working with the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack, describing the events of January 6, 2021, when a mob of Trump loyalists violently interrupted the certification of the 2020 presidential election, as “legitimate political discourse.”
Ever since the censure resolution was voted on and approved by members of the RNC, Republicans have been scrambling to distance themselves from it. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), for instance, blasted the censure motion’s language, noting that the attack on the Capitol was “a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent a peaceful transfer of power.”
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) also spoke out against the document, saying that it would disadvantage Republicans in the upcoming elections this fall. “Every moment that is spent re-litigating a lost election or defending those who have been convicted of criminal behavior moves us further away from the goal of victory this fall,” Collins said.
Several Democratic Party campaign committees and Political Action Committees (PACs) recently told Axios that they won’t let voters forget about the RNC’s characterization of the Capitol breach as “legitimate political discourse.”
“We will ensure that they are held accountable for a position completely at odds with the American people,” House Majority PAC executive director Abby Curran said.
“[We will] continue to remind voters throughout the year that the official position of the Republican Party is that attacking the Capitol … and trying to overturn an election are ‘legitimate political discourse,’” an aide to the Democratic National Committee said.
Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-New York), chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, suggested that the topic will be at the forefront of the midterm races.
“The Republican Party is having a hard time deciding whether a violent attack on the Capitol is good or bad. We think they should have to answer for that,” Maloney said.
Meanwhile, Democratic candidates in swing districts have indicated that they will make the language of the censure resolution a central issue in the upcoming midterms.
“I will challenge an opponent to discuss it. Do they think that was ‘legitimate political discourse’?” Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pennsylvania) said to Axios.
But while some Republicans try to distance themselves from the issue, making statements that reject the language of the RNC censure, this may ultimately be to their detriment: a majority of the poll’s Republican respondents (52 percent) opposed the view of American voters overall, saying that the individuals involved in the attack were “protecting democracy.” This means that in trying to appeal to mainstream voters, GOP candidates may alienate their own base of supporters, lessening their chances of electoral wins.
Typically, the party of the newly elected president fares poorly in the first midterm races after the president assumes office — and with Democrats controlling both houses of Congress by only a slim margin, Republicans are hoping that historical trends from the past half-century will remain true in this year’s midterms.
Highlighting the GOP’s role in the events of January 6 will likely work to Democrats’ advantage — as will emphasizing Republican candidates’ ties to former President Donald Trump, whose favorability ratings in most polls are a net-negative in the double digits.
A previous draft of the resolution that formally censured Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-Illinois) and Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming), which was composed by the Republican National Committee (RNC), vastly downplayed the attack on the U.S. Capitol building last year, describing the breach of the Capitol by a mob of Trump loyalists as “non-violent.”
Although the final version of the censure document removed that descriptor, the document’s depiction of the Capitol attack still sparked criticism.
Last week, the RNC voted to adopt a resolution condemning Kinzinger and Cheney for their involvement in the House select committee investigating the attack; the resolution accuses the commission of persecuting Trump loyalists and refers to that day’s violence as “legitimate political discourse.” But an early draft of the censure resolution suggests that the RNC wanted to downplay the events of January 6, 2021, even further.
According to The New York Times, which obtained a copy of the early draft, the RNC was preparing to describe the Capitol attack as “ordinary citizens engaged in nonviolent and legal political discourse.”
Republicans’ positions on the Capitol attack have shifted numerous times over the past year. Initially, most GOP lawmakers and party members condemned the Trump loyalists who breached the Capitol – but gradually, leaders like RNC chair Ronna McDaniel and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) backtracked their initial disapproval of the day’s events, perhaps influenced by former President Donald Trump’s repeated defense of his loyalists’ actions.
Still, there appears to be a noticeable schism within the Republican Party, as some Republican lawmakers have denounced the censure resolution’s language as inaccurate and flawed. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) – McDaniel’s uncle – is among those who have voiced their disapproval of the resolution’s wording.
“It could not have been a more inappropriate message,” Romney said, adding that he has “expressed [his] point of view” to McDaniel through text messages.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) has also spoken out against the language used in the censure, breaking away from McCarthy, his counterpart in the House.
“We all were here. We saw what happened,” McConnell said in a recent statement. “It was a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after a legitimately certified election, from one administration to the next. That’s what it was.”
Several Democrats condemned the document’s characterization of the Capitol attack.
“There was no ‘legitimate political discourse’ occurring on Jan 6,” said Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Arizona). “What occurred was a mob, incited by the Big Lie, who attacked our democracy.”
The RNC’s censure of Kinzinger and Cheney was also rebuked by members of the January 6 committee.
Peace protest at the White House – Photo credit: iacenter.org
While the Biden administration is sending more troops and weapons to inflame the Ukraine conflict and Congress is pouring more fuel on the fire, the American people are on a totally different track.
A December 2021 poll found that a plurality of Americans in both political parties prefer to resolve differences over Ukraine through diplomacy. Another December poll found that a plurality of Americans (48 percent) would oppose going to war with Russia should it invade Ukraine, with only 27 percent favoring U.S. military involvement.
The conservative Koch Institute, which commissioned that poll, concluded that “the United States has no vital interests at stake in Ukraine and continuing to take actions that increase the risk of a confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia is therefore not necessary for our security. After more than two decades of endless war abroad, it is not surprising there is wariness among the American people for yet another war that wouldn’t make us safer or more prosperous.”
The most anti-war popular voice on the right is Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who has been lashing out against the hawks in both parties, as have other anti-interventionist libertarians.
On the left, the anti-war sentiment was in full force on February 5, when over 75 protests took place from Maine to Alaska. The protesters, including union activists, environmentalists, healthcare workers and students, denounced pouring even more money into the military when we have so many burning needs at home.
You would think Congress would be echoing the public sentiment that a war with Russia is not in our national interest. Instead, taking our nation to war and supporting the gargantuan military budget seem to be the only issues that both parties agree on.
Most Republicans in Congress are criticizing Biden for not being tough enough (or for focusing on Russia instead of China) and most Democrats are afraid to oppose a Democratic president or be smeared as Putin apologists (remember, Democrats spent four years under Trump demonizing Russia).
Both parties have bills calling for draconian sanctions on Russia and expedited “lethal aid” to Ukraine. The Republicans are advocating for $450 million in new military shipments; the Democrats are one-upping them with a price tag of $500 million.
Progressive Caucus leaders Pramila Jayapal and Barbara Lee have called for negotiations and de-escalation. But others in the Caucus–such as Reps. David Cicilline and Andy Levin–are co-sponsors of the dreadful anti-Russia bill, and Speaker Pelosi is fast-tracking the bill to expedite weapons shipments to Ukraine.
But sending more weapons and imposing heavy-handed sanctions can only ratchet up the resurgent U.S. Cold War on Russia, with all its attendant costs to American society: lavish military spending displacing desperately needed social spending; geopolitical divisions undermining international cooperation for a better future; and, not least, increased risks of a nuclear war that could end life on Earth as we know it.
For those looking for real solutions, we have good news.
Negotiations regarding Ukraine are not limited to President Biden and Secretary Blinken’s failed efforts to browbeat the Russians. There is another already existing diplomatic track for peace in Ukraine, a well-established process called the Minsk Protocol, led by France and Germany and supervised by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
The civil war in Eastern Ukraine broke out in early 2014, after the people of Donetsk and Luhansk provinces unilaterally declared independence from Ukraine as the Donetsk (DPR) and Luhansk (LPR) People’s Republics, in response to the U.S.-backed coup in Kiev in February 2014. The post-coup government formed new “National Guard” units to assault the breakaway region, but the separatists fought back and held their territory, with some covert support from Russia. Diplomatic efforts were launched to resolve the conflict.
The original Minsk Protocol was signed by the “Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine” (Russia, Ukraine and the OSCE) in September 2014. It reduced the violence, but failed to end the war. France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine also held a meeting in Normandy in June 2014 and this group became known as the “Normandy Contact Group” or the “Normandy Format.”
All these parties continued to meet and negotiate, together with the leaders of the self-declared Donetsk (DPR) and Luhansk (LPR) People’s Republics in Eastern Ukraine, and they eventually signed the Minsk II agreement on February 12, 2015. The terms were similar to the original Minsk Protocol, but more detailed and with more buy-in from the DPR and LPR.
The Minsk II agreement was unanimously approved by the U.N. Security Council in Resolution 2202 on February 17, 2015. The United States voted in favor of the resolution, and 57 Americans are currently serving as ceasefire monitors with the OSCE in Ukraine.
The key elements of the 2015 Minsk II Agreement were:
– an immediate bilateral ceasefire between Ukrainian government forces and DPR and LPR forces;
– the withdrawal of heavy weapons from a 30-kilometer-wide buffer zone along the line of control between government and separatist forces;
– elections in the secessionist Donetsk (DPR) and Luhansk (LPR) People’s Republics, to be monitored by the OSCE; and,
– constitutional reforms to grant greater autonomy to the separatist-held areas within a reunified but less centralized Ukraine.
The ceasefire and buffer zone have held well enough for seven years to prevent a return to full-scale civil war, but organizing elections in Donbas that both sides will recognize has proved more difficult.
The DPR and LPR postponed elections several times between 2015 and 2018. They held primary elections in 2016 and, finally, a general election in November 2018. But neither Ukraine, the United States nor the European Union recognized the results, claiming the election was not conducted in compliance with the Minsk Protocol.
For its part, Ukraine has not made the agreed-upon constitutional changes to grant greater autonomy to the separatist regions And the separatists have not allowed the central government to retake control of the international border between Donbas and Russia, as specified in the agreement.
The Normandy Contact Group (France, Germany, Russia, Ukraine) for the Minsk Protocol has met periodically since 2014, and is meeting regularly throughout the current crisis, with its next meeting scheduled for February 10 in Berlin The OSCE’s 680 unarmed civilian monitors and 621 support staff in Ukraine have also continued their work throughout this crisis. Their latest report, issued February 1, documented a 65% decrease in ceasefire violations compared to two months ago.
But increased U.S. military and diplomatic support since 2019 has encouraged President Zelensky to pull back from Ukraine’s commitments under the Minsk Protocol, and to reassert unconditional Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea and Donbas. This has raised credible fears of a new escalation of the civil war, and U.S. support for Zelensky’s more aggressive posture has undermined the existing Minsk-Normandy diplomatic process.
Zelensky’s recent statement that “panic” in Western capitals is economically destabilizing Ukraine suggests that he may now be more aware of the pitfalls in the more confrontational path his government adopted, with U.S. encouragement.
The current crisis should be a wake-up call to all involved that the Minsk-Normandy process remains the only viable framework for a peaceful resolution in Ukraine. It deserves full international support, including from U.S. Members of Congress, especially in light of broken promises on NATO expansion, the U.S. role in the 2014 coup, and now the panic over fears of a Russian invasion that Ukrainian officials say are overblown.
On a separate, albeit related, diplomatic track, the United States and Russia must urgently address the breakdown in their bilateral relations. Instead of bravado and one upmanship, they must restore and build on previous disarmament agreements that they have cavalierly abandoned, placing the whole world in existential danger.
Restoring U.S. support for the Minsk Protocol and the Normandy Format would also help to decouple Ukraine’s already thorny and complex internal problems from the larger geopolitical problem of NATO expansion, which must primarily be resolved by the United States, Russia and NATO.
The United States and Russia must not use the people of Ukraine as pawns in a revived Cold War or as chips in their negotiations over NATO expansion. Ukrainians of all ethnicities deserve genuine support to resolve their differences and find a way to live together in one country – or to separate peacefully, as other people have been allowed to do in Ireland, Bangladesh, Slovakia and throughout the former U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia.
In 2008, then-U.S. Ambassador to Moscow (now CIA Director) William Burns warned his government that dangling the prospect of NATO membership for Ukraine could lead to civil war and present Russia with a crisis on its border in which it could be forced to intervene.
In a cable published by WikiLeaks, Burns wrote, “Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.”
Since Burns’s warning in 2008, successive U.S. administrations have plunged headlong into the crisis he predicted. Members of Congress, especially members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, can play a leading role in restoring sanity to U.S. policy on Ukraine by championing a moratorium on Ukraine’s membership in NATO and a reinvigoration of the Minsk Protocol, which the Trump and Biden administrations have arrogantly tried to upstage and upend with weapons shipments, ultimatums and panic.
OSCE monitoring reports on Ukraine are all headed with the critical message: “Facts Matter.” Members of Congress should embrace that simple principle and educate themselves about the Minsk-Normandy diplomacy. This process has maintained relative peace in Ukraine since 2015, and remains the U.N.-endorsed, internationally agreed-upon framework for a lasting resolution.
If the U.S. government wants to play a constructive role in Ukraine, it should genuinely support this already existing framework for a solution to the crisis, and end the heavy-handed U.S. intervention that has only undermined and delayed its implementation. And our elected officials should start listening to their own constituents, who have absolutely no interest in going to war with Russia.
On Monday night, the Ohio Supreme Court threw out Republican-drawn congressional maps after justices ruled GOP maps unconstitutionally gerrymandered for the second time.
The justices ruled that the Ohio Redistricting Commission’s latest attempt to draw constitutional maps that accurately represent the electorate were too skewed toward Republicans. It was a 4 to 3 ruling, with one moderate Republican joining the court’s Democrats in rejecting the redrawn map.
According to the ruling, Republicans in the legislature had proposed nixing one Republican-leaning House district and one Republican-leaning Senate district in central Ohio. But the Democratic-leaning districts that would replace them were only Democratic by “very slim margins,” the justices wrote.
Although prior elections have shown that roughly 54 percent of Ohio voters prefer Republicans while 46 percent prefer Democrats, the new maps skewed even more favor to the GOP, giving them 58 percent of seats. According to the Ohio Constitution, the maps must be representative of the electorate’s preferences.
“[T]he revised plan’s structure guarantees that the 58 percent seat share for Republicans is a floor whereas the 42 percent seat share for Democrats is a ceiling,” the ruling reads. New maps are due back by February 17.
Though the new maps are closer to a representative partisan split than the first ones Republicans submitted, the ruling said that adjustments to the maps were a facade.
The first maps gave Republicans about 62 percent of House seats and nearly 70 percent of Senate seats. Justices wrote that Republicans had not started the new maps from scratch, but rather tweaked the old, unconstitutional maps. GOP lawmakers “started with the same plan that we invalidated and then merely adjusted certain districts just enough so that they could nominally be reclassified as ‘Democratic-leaning,’” the ruling reads.
Voting rights advocates praised the court decision. “Now that the Ohio Redistricting Commission is back to square one, we ask that they finally stop and listen to the voters’ demands for a fair redistricting process,” Common Cause Ohio said in a statement, lamenting the fact that the commissions’ map drawing process is done behind closed doors. “After today’s ruling, these partisan games must come to an end. It’s time for the Ohio Redistricting Commission to do its job.”
The bipartisan Ohio Redistricting Commission is made up of five Republicans and two Democrats and was created in the hopes of stamping out partisanship in map drawing. But the panel has failed to reach a bipartisan consensus on its maps twice so far.
In response to the maps being rejected for a second time, Democrats released their own version of the maps, which they say adheres to the Ohio Constitution’s guidelines for a partisan split.
“Our congressional map proposal keeps communities together, reflects the preferences of Ohio voters, and follows the Constitution. Most importantly, it does not unduly favor or disfavor a political party, in compliance with the Court’s ruling,” House Minority Leader Allison Russo, a Democrat, said in a statement.
“There are multiple pathways to achieve the fair, constitutional map that Ohioans deserve, and our updated map is yet another example demonstrating this legislature can deliver a fair map that complies with the court order and the Ohio Constitution,” Russo continued.
President Joe Biden’s agenda has stalled out in Congress. He’s facing low approval ratings and a potential Republican wave in November’s midterm election. The announcement of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement was seen as a chance to reset the narrative, in Washington-speak, and give party activists some reason for enthusiasm in what could be a grueling and demoralizing year. In reality, nominating a new justice, even one in the mold of the bench’s most liberal member, Sonia Sotomayor, may be little more than placing a fig leaf over a fundamentally anti-democratic institution.
On the campaign trail, Biden pledged to appoint a Black woman to the Supreme Court, should he get the chance. He’s now poised to fulfill that promise, and if he’s successful it will mark the first time that a Black woman will sit on the bench in the court’s history. The response has been completely predictable, with conservatives using racist tropes to discredit a nominee before she’s even been named, right-wing Democrat Rep. Jim Clyburn pushing an anti-labor candidate, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez arguing that considering identity is necessary but not sufficient to evaluate who should sit on the bench.
Perhaps most notable, though, is the lack of obstruction Biden is getting from the two senators who have, until now, thwarted his most progressive agenda items. Senators Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) have served as alternating saboteurs of Biden’s social spending package, and the party’s voting rights and election reform agendas. When it comes to the court pick, however, they’ve fallen in line, at least for now.
Manchin recently said he was “anxious” to confirm Breyer’s replacement, and that he was open to voting for a candidate more liberal than the outgoing justice. Sinema has been characteristically obtuse about her position, saying only in a statement that she was looking forward to “thoughtfully examining the nominee.” Neither Manchin nor Sinema have voted against any of Biden’s lower court nominees, and the feeling within the party is that they’ll ultimately support whoever Biden puts forward.
There are a few theories to account for Manchin and Sinema’s apparent lack of obstructionism. It could be that a Supreme Court nominee is such a momentous occasion that intra-party conflicts can be put to the side. In Sinema’s case, it could be that she fears opposing Biden’s pick could add fuel to the growing campaign to primary her in 2024.
More likely is that each of them understands two things about the Supreme Court. First, and most obviously, that the composition of the current court won’t fundamentally change with Justice Breyer’s retirement. It will overwhelmingly still be a 6-3 conservative court, and is likely to stay that way for years. Second, is that the Supreme Court — like the filibuster in the Senate — is a deeply reactionary institution that has almost always existed to thwart, rather than further, the expansion of democracy in the United States. From pro-slavery decisions like Dred Scott v. Sandford; to the racist “insular cases,” which created second-class status for people in U.S. territories and colonies; to opposition to the New Deal; to the post-1970s era, the court has been reliably on the side of white supremacy and the interests of capital.
Unfortunately, most liberals have a completely backwards view of the court and its history. The famous Warren Court, which began in 1953 with the elevation of Earl Warren to chief justice, looms large in the minds of liberals for its groundbreaking rulings, including ending formal school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, mandating publicly provided criminal representation in Gideon v. Wainwright, and ensuring a right to privacy Griswold v. Connecticut, a crucial pillar in securing abortion rights less than a decade later under Roe v. Wade.
But even with Warren at the head, the Supreme Court was only reliably liberal during a brief period from 1962 to 1969. Otherwise, the court has consistently been dominated by conservatives. Since then, the court has consistently moved to the right, a dynamic that only accelerated under former President Donald Trump. Despite this undeniable trend, liberals continue to imagine the court’s role as a protector of minority rights, rather than a champion of big business and anti-majoritarian rule.
Liberal opinion of the court did decline by the end of the Trump years, now standing at a 46 percent approval rating. Still, arch-conservative Chief Justice John Roberts had a 55 percent approval rating among Democrats in December 2021, only 2 points shy of his approval among Republicans. Democrats gave the Supreme Court as a whole an approval rating of 58 percent as late as September 2020, although that dipped 8 points the following year. Support for the court from liberals seems to be very closely tied to the ideological balance of the court, rather than the court as an institution.
The uncritical hero worship of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is just the most obvious manifestation of a core belief among liberals. Namely, that the court, for all its faults, is a necessary, natural and often progressive institution in U.S. life. That also helps to explain why there is approximately zero interest from mainstream liberals in fundamentally changing the court, either by adding seats, instituting term limits, ignoring its rulings or abolishing it altogether.
For all the signals that Democrats will probably be able to muster 50 votes for Biden’s choice, the actual confirmation is at least a month away. New Mexico Sen. Ben Ray Lujan, a Democrat, was hospitalized this week after suffering a stroke. Early reporting says it was mild, and that Lujan should be able to return to work in four to six weeks.
There’s also still time for Republican opposition to eat away at either Manchin or Sinema. For the moment, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his leadership team are reportedly trying to play down early opposition, believing they don’t have the votes to stop whoever Biden picks.
The rest of the party, however, isn’t following McConnell’s cue. Potential Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz called Biden’s commitment to nominating a Black woman “offensive.” Sen. Josh Hawley, another presidential hopeful, said it was an example of Biden’s “hard woke left” ideology, and accused the administration of being “race-obsessed, gender-obsessed in terms of trying to deconstruct genders.” Arguably the chamber’s most open bigot, Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy, said he wanted a court pick “who knows a law book from a J. Crew catalog,” and who wouldn’t “try to rewrite the Constitution every other Thursday to try to advance a ‘woke agenda.’” Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker said Biden’s nominee would be a “beneficiary” of “affirmative action.”
Whether Manchin would actually support a court nominee significantly more liberal than him remains to be seen. He’s previously put offers on the table, only to rescind them as negotiations progressed. Where Sinema stands also remains to be seen. If Biden chooses D.C. Circuit Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who recently issued a major ruling in favor of federal unions, either senator could discover a previously unknown objection to them. But if they both go along with Biden’s pick even if she has a history of liberal opinions, that tells us how comfortable conservatives in both parties are with the Supreme Court right now.